Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Official Support For PHP 4 Ends

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the we-actually-knew-ye-pretty-well dept.

PHP 245

Da Massive writes with this excerpt from ComputerWorld: "For a technology that has been in stable release since May 22, 2000, PHP 4 has finally reached the end of its official life. With the release of PHP 4.4.9, official support has ended and the final security patch for the platform issued. ...With eight years of legacy code out there, it is likely that there are going to be a fairly large number of systems that will not migrate to PHP 5 in the near future, and a reasonable proportion of those that will not make the migration at all. For those who are not able to migrate their systems to the new version of PHP, noted PHP security expert Stefan Esser will continue to provide third party security patching for the PHP 4 line through his Suhosin product."

cancel ×

245 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good to see... (2, Insightful)

creature124 (1148937) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551169)

I am glad to see that the PHP devs can allow an old version to die....unlike Microsoft, which seems determined to drag all of its products down with legacy support.

This is the way progress is made.

Re:Good to see... (1)

ya really (1257084) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551417)

...unlike Microsoft, which seems determined to drag all of its products down with legacy support.

Isn't that why there aren't any driver issues with vista?

Re:Good to see... (3, Funny)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551437)

heh. Actually there were tons of drivers issues with Vista but for entirely different reasons.

needd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551793)

PEDOBEAR NEED

Good riddance (-1, Troll)

niff (175639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551207)

still, let's have one minute of silence for this tragic death...

*FARTS*

really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551237)

and nothing of value was lost!

Oh well (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551239)

I will have to agree with Linus on this one.

Re:Oh well (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551713)

Huh?

Re:Oh well (1)

Prep_Styles (564065) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551879)

I second the "HUH?", care to elaborate?

You're about a year late (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551241)

PHP 4 End of Life Announcement [slashdot.org] (July 14, 2007)

wow FUDSTER (1, Troll)

puto (533470) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551253)

PHP 4 was released in 2000 and is finally getting an EOL date but is still going to receive patches. Microsoft XP was released in 2001 and its EOL date is 2009, with security patches until 2014. So you have two products with the same span of product life, and still going to have patches for security. Very poor trolling indeed.

Re:wow FUDSTER (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551329)

and yet when microsoft does it there are howls from the idiot gallery that get modded insightful. when it happens with php the same posts get modded as flamebait. very poor trolling indeed.

Re:wow FUDSTER (3, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551615)

The difference is that PHP5 works great, whereas Vista is a steaming pile of crap. If Vista was any good, I'd be fine with MS killing XP. but it's not.

Re:wow FUDSTER (4, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551355)

PHP 4 was released in 2000 and is finally getting an EOL date but is still going to receive patches. Microsoft XP was released in 2001 and its EOL date is 2009, with security patches until 2014.

Technically the EOL was announced in 2007, and it was the beginning of 2008. What ends today is official security patch support.

The patches offered by Mr. Esser are not official, though I'd say he's more than qualified for the job.

Overall, especially for an open source project, I'd say the transition was handled pretty well. What's worrying me more is where the new versions are heading, but that's another discussion.

Re:wow FUDSTER (0, Troll)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551359)

What the hell kind of point are you trying to make?

Re:wow FUDSTER (5, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551419)

People will still be allowed to get PHP 4 after it is EOL'd.

Try buying a new copy of XP now. Even getting a computer with XP (and not paying for Vista) is getting difficult now.

That is the difference.

Re:wow FUDSTER (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551595)

True, but for the most part, PHP5 doesn't change things from PHP4 (some default configuration settings have changed for the better, but flipping a bit to go back to the old way isn't exactly hard). It's not like you're dealing with a complete new UI, just some additional functionality. Comparing a close source operating system to an open source scripting language isn't too fair of a comparison.

Re:wow FUDSTER (3, Informative)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551911)

Not to be an ass, but your wrong.

In PHP4 objects are passed by value. In PHP5 they're passed by reference.

In PHP5 you also have public, private, and protected variables.

In PHP4 class constructors were the same name as the class. In PHP5 it's __construct.

I could go on about the difference, but I won't. There's a lot of differences between the two.

I'm glad PHP4 has reached EOL.

Re:wow FUDSTER (4, Informative)

Ariven (256118) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551621)

I can buy a copy of XP, upgrade or full install, retail or OEM at newegg with no problems.

Re:wow FUDSTER (4, Insightful)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552121)

And I can build PHP4 or PHP5 from source, or intall binaries, without sending any money at all to Newegg.

Now that magic quotes are off by default... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551285)

FRIST PSOT!!!!!'); DELETE FROM replies WHERE reply != 'FRIST PSOT!!!!!'; --

Re:Now that magic quotes are off by default... (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552417)

Yeah, I know this post was meant to be funny, but anyone that depended on magic_quotes for 'security' needs their head examined. All magic_quotes ever did was cause trouble, and I'm sad to see it's still an option in PHP 5 (indeed, many web hosts explicitly enable it too).

On the plus side, php.net has the work-around to servers with it enabled in a solution that's practically cut-and-paste.

Netcraft Confirms (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551289)

PHP is dying.

By Neruos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551307)

Tell me you just didn't compare a scripting web language to a operating system.

Re:By Neruos (5, Funny)

Refenestrator (1060918) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551503)

You're right. He should have compared it to a car.

Re:By Neruos (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551693)

What do you mean, an african or an european car?

Re:By Neruos (1)

Ghubi (1102775) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551993)

In soviet russia the car compares you

PHP3 (-1, Troll)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551327)

And we'll still be dealing with SQL injection code for another decade.

Obi-Wan (3, Funny)

nighty5 (615965) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551333)

I felt a great disturbance in the CVS, as if millions of lines of code suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:Obi-Wan (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551577)

WTF. Yoda said that. Get it straight dude, or go back to digg.

Re:Obi-Wan (3, Funny)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551599)

Off to Digg for you AC, and hand in your geek card in exchange for sunglasses that don't fit on the way out.

Re:Obi-Wan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24552431)

in exchange for sunglasses that don't fit on the way out.

Well that's kinda weird. Do the sunglasses later change shape, or maybe my head shrinks?

Re:Obi-Wan (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552089)

The proper term is 'thousands of kloc.'

Turn in your badge to Steve Ballmer on your way out.

Re:Obi-Wan (2, Funny)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552659)

no wonder; it's CVS, after all. ;p

Re:Obi-Wan (0, Troll)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552749)

I felt a similar disturbance..

However, I perceived that it was as if millions of underachieving non OO toting PHP devs (professional internet browsing technicians) suddenly cried out in terror and were silenced

Backward Compatability (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551339)

I feel like this is only even a story at all because valid PHP 4 code isn't necessarily valid PHP 5 code.

Curious choices by the PHP folks to me, but I'm not really deeply invested enough in PHP to fairly call them good or bad.

Re:Backward Compatability (4, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551407)

I feel like this is only even a story at all because valid PHP 4 code isn't necessarily valid PHP 5 code.

Curious choices by the PHP folks to me, but I'm not really deeply invested enough in PHP to fairly call them good or bad.

The reason for those curious choices was the even more curious choices in the languages design in earlier versions. I would say however, that even the best design gets outdated in time, and it's better to sacrafice compatibility at some point.

Key web-related technologies have reinvented themselves and it's hard to say where they would be if they didn't do so. ASP.NET (vs. old ASP) comes to mind, which was a radical rearchitecture. Flash is another example (on the client side), which almost completely rewrote their rendering stack in version 8, and completely rewrote their script runtime stack in Flash 9.

Flash 9 (0, Offtopic)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552503)

Going a little OT, I'd like to point out that Flash 9 made leaps and bounds in Actionscript performance. The latest version of Actionscript (Actionscript 3) is very similar to Java (no, not Javascript), and even uses the Java compiler and runs on the JVM.

Compared to previous versions of Actionscript it finally feels like a real programming language, not a ripoff of Javascript intended for hobbyists and graphic designers.

Re:Flash 9 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24552537)

The latest version of Actionscript (Actionscript 3) is very similar to Java (no, not Javascript), and even uses the Java compiler and runs on the JVM.

It uses custom runtime, not JVM. The Flex AS3 compiler is written in Java (as Flex is an Eclipse plugin), but the Flex compiler and the Java compiler don't share anything.

Re:Backward Compatability (1)

SimGuy (611829) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551505)

This is common when you use the three-segment versioning method.

If you raise the first number, you are generally doing so to indicate your backwards compatibility is being broken and that you are changing or removing features in addition to adding new ones.

Changing the middle number means you're keeping compatibility with the previous version, but adding new major fuctionality.

Changing the last number means you're just adding patches that do not affect compatibility or features.

And you eventually have to stop supporting your old major version numbers, or you'll be forced to forever maintain multiple trees with substantially different codebases and no one will ever stop using them.

Good News/Bad News (3, Interesting)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551343)

The bad news: Lots of unsupported legacy code in the wild.

The good news: Any conversion that needs to happen means more work for developers all around! Yay for a paycheck!

Seriously though, PHP4 was fine for what it was, but it definitely had its drawbacks. Poor object support, poor error handling (No try..catch blocks? Seriously?), no type-hinting, no foreach statement, etc. PHP5 is so much easier to work with, and honestly most sites should've made the switch a few years back if they haven't already.

Re:Good News/Bad News (5, Interesting)

sabernet (751826) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551383)

Where did you get your php info? foreach was introduced in PHP4, eval as well for error catching.

The object support was nasty, but still better then the pseudo-object crap that perl has. Neither has private objects and vars outside of normal scoping but at least php didn't require passing extra arguments and shifting them out via a pseudo-constructor.

Also, you could type cast in php4 as well.

Re:Good News/Bad News (5, Funny)

SimGuy (611829) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551513)

Where did you get your php info?

I get mine from phpinfo();

Re:Good News/Bad News (1)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551571)

Ah, ok, you got me on foreach, I could've sworn that was a PHP5 thing. As for eval, you gotta admit that is a pretty poor substitute for try..catch blocks.

Also, you could type cast in php4 as well.

I'm not talking about type-casting, I'm talking about type-hinting. Instead of defining function foo($myVar) you can define function bar(MyClass $foo), so you (supposedly) know what you're getting as a parameter. Of course it only works on objects and arrays, but hey, better than nothing right?

I know what you mean about Perl though. If you're coming from a strong OO background, using objects in Perl can be shock.

OOP is Overyped (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552253)

The object support [in 4] was nasty, but still better then the pseudo-object crap that perl has.

Be careful. Some of us feel that OOP is overhyped. While I can see use for it in operating systems and systems software, eCommerce and biz apps have had a difficult time making use of OOP well. I've yet to see a decent example of OOP helping these. (Of course, "decent" is often in the eyes of the beholder.) But, I might change my mind if shown a decent example.
     

Re:OOP is Overyped (4, Interesting)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552365)

OOP is not overhyped. Just misunderstood. PHP4's object model really was a bit nasty, as evidenced by the projects that jumped into using it before they understood how it was meant to work (e.g., oscommerce).

Decent example of php5 (zf, in fact) e-commerce (bleh): Magento [magentocommerce.com] , 2008 sourceforge best new project.

The reason that there is a lot of procedural php4 code out there is that the older api's don't make sense in php5's paradigm. With the millions of people used to writing to api's like Drupal's or Wordpress's, the change was glacial.

But it is totally clear: PHP5 better than PHP4. OOP good.

Note: I am a former Dijkstra devotee. I've heard every argument you can imagine against OOP.

Re:OOP is Overhyped (3, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552411)

Decent example of php5 (zf, in fact) e-commerce (bleh): Magento, 2008 sourceforge best new project.

What specifically does OO make better about it? What's an example?

Note: I am a former Dijkstra devotee. I've heard every argument you can imagine against OOP.

That would make you well suited to describe and illustrate what changed your mind. Dijkstra was mostly pre-relational, so he may hold a RAM-centric view of data structures. OO is missing a foundation in set theory, and this is what relational adds. OO is anti-set IMO, and this is largely why it bothers me. It's also anti declarative for the most part. Declarative and set theory is a good thing, at least it better fits the way I think (model the app world). OOP is also too pointer-centric, creating a big messy RAM graph.
       

Re:OOP is Overhyped (4, Interesting)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552663)

What specifically does OO make better about it? What's an example?

There are many 1000+ page books on the subject. I think this question is beyond the scope of a slashdot comment. But, as a taste: More literate and intuitive api's. Type safety. MVC.

Specifically about Magento: It uses a framework that has been systematically tested (another advantage of oop) and is based on the MVC + Front Controller paradigm for web apps. It went from whiteboard to working in 3 months. It's simple to extend.

Regarding what changed my mind about OOP: I learned to use OOP techniques. I never had any negative feelings towards OOP, I was just in love with single-in/single-out purity of the old ways.

OOP is great for my shop. Of course you can accomplish the same result, theoretically, with any two complete languages/paradigms. The question is whether you want anyone else to read your code (or whether you want to be able to read it in 6 months), how long you want to take writing/researching it, what your requirements are for code quality, and what kind of environment you want to work in if you're on a team. Obviously, if it's just you and you have eternity to write and debug your application, then oop doesn't offer any advantages.

My advice is just to try it out. You can use your Dijkstra-fu inside of methods and in novel data structures, while at the same time experiencing the convenience and consistency of magic axiomatic things like "programming to an interface." It took me a few months of mind-destroying pain to change the way I built a program, but it is very much worth it. Apologies if you've heard this advice before.

Btw, you sound like you probably know a lot more about Djikstra than I do. :) There are so many ways... OOP is now just a another tool for me. The paradigm that has taken its place as my ocd target is functional languages like Haskell.

Re:OOP is Overhyped (0, Troll)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552761)

There are many 1000+ page books on the subject.

I've read a few and they left a bad taste in my mouth. They are usually anti-RDBMS in my opinion. There is a strong anti-relational streak in pro-OO literature.

More literate and intuitive api's

Those are often a matter of opinion. Different people think differently. What you find intuitive may not apply to others. Without specific metrics or clear-cut examples, I cannot do much with such statements, to be frank. I'd have to know what you are thinking and what you are mentally comparing to what.

Type safety.

OOP is not necessarily about type safety. An OO language like SmallTalk is very weak-typed. (Much OO lingo comes from the inventor of Smalltalk.) And heavy-typing versus light-typing is a long and bitter argument that is never settled, even excluding the OO issue. (If I was forced to use OO, I'd rather use Smalltalk than say Java or Eiffel.)

As far as MVC, I find it outdated and unnecessarily complex. OOP and MVC clingage is main reason we don't have a decent cross-language GUI kit yet. Non-trivial OO API's are very difficult to make cross-language. Nobody has solved this problem. But you are right in that such a debate is not something we can settle via mere slashdot messages.

But thanks for your feedback anyhow.
     

(correction, should be "overhyped") (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552373)

Does anybody know how to permanently enable the single-line textbox firefox spellchecker? -Thanks

On the other hand (3, Insightful)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552543)

Whether or not you see OOP as overhyped, if a language features OOP it should do it well or not at all.

Nobody is asking you to like OOP in this case, but if you are going to support it, support it well - not half-assed.

Re:On the other hand (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552779)

Whether or not you see OOP as overhyped, if a language features OOP it should do it well or not at all. Nobody is asking you to like OOP in this case, but if you are going to support it, support it well - not half-assed.

In my opinion they *still* fouled it up. They tried to make it more like Java when they should have focused on a more dynamic/type-light approach to OOP, borrowing ideas more from say SmallTalk than Java.
   

Re:Good News/Bad News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24552423)

Actually, Perl has private members, accessor generation and a lot of other features, if using the right module [cpan.org] (or one of the many others, TIMTOWTDI ;-).

Re:Good News/Bad News (2, Funny)

billcopc (196330) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551853)

Agreed. Maybe I'm an asshole (no wait, that's a guaranteed fact), but I have no pity for anyone still running PHP4... if they wanted to switch, they had all the time in the world to do so. PHP5 has been out for what, 4 or 5 years now ? Anyone still running on the old stuff is either happy with it and shouldn't bother upgrading, or hopelessly incompetent.

That said, I'm very eager to see PHP6... I don't really want to switch over to Ruby / Python, largely for performance reasons, so I'm curious to see what new ghetto tools PHP6 will provide me. Even though it's a shit language, I always thought it had a certain charm in its crudeness and the fact that there's a (redundant) function for everything imaginable. I write all manner of scripts in PHP, even non-web stuff, as it lets me do stuff in a fraction of the time.

Re:Good News/Bad News (3, Interesting)

daemonburrito (1026186) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552389)

Even though it's a shit language, I always thought it had a certain charm in its crudeness and the fact that there's a (redundant) function for everything imaginable.

Does not compute. If you are using PHP5 to its potential, then most of your coding should be abstracted away from the old built-in (and inconsistently named) functions. You should never have to touch them.

PHP5 is not a shit language, in any way, and it even manages to be a superset to the older versions (which were, admittedly, crude).

no foreach statement??? (1)

mcalwell (669361) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552747)

What?

PHP is the best language ever (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551345)

I love PHP. It's powerful, easy to use, easy to adapt. The only reason a web developer would use something else, like ASP, Java, or Ruby on Rails, is be because they are stupid, old, corrupt, or crazy.

PHP is a minor evil perpetrated and created by... (5, Funny)

exabrial (818005) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551351)

PHP is a minor evil perpetrated and created by incompetent amateurs, whereas Perl is a great and insidious evil, perpetrated by skilled but perverted professionals. -- Jon Ribbens Amen.

Re:PHP is a minor evil perpetrated and created by. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551405)

Looking for a (-1, Troll), aren't we? True or not.

As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 .. (4, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551361)

.. let me say hooray! PHP5 is worlds ahead.

Let me also say they're wrong about legacy systems being slow to migrate: PHP5 runs PHP4 code just fine (notwithstanding a few copy-on-write and unassigned reference issues, which are very easy to fix).

PHP5, in this context, would be better called "Zend Engine 2", since that's what the real update is. PHP4 the language is essentially just a subset of PHP5.

Incidentally (perhaps) the phpMyAdmin 3.0.0 beta just came out yesterday which sacrifices Zend Engine 1 (PHP4) support. It also drops MySQL 4 support, and I think lots of projects will follow suit; PHP4 is going to drag MySQL 4 with it, which is also great.

Re:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551517)

Let me second that. I started PHP with version 4, and I rejoiced when I moved to PHP 5 and the new object model. Version 4 dies just in time for version 5.3 and version 6 to come along. Those two bring a lot of nice things, but nothing as revolutionary as that new object model of Zend 2.

It's high time to say goodbye to version 4!

Re:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (2, Insightful)

kjots (64798) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552307)

Please don't let anyone get away with calling the internet the cloud!

Traditionally, when network engineers and administrators draw diagrams of networks, they represent the connection to the Internet as a big bumpy object not unlike a child's drawing of a cloud. I have heard old hackers who used to work in the telecommunications industry during the 80's and 70's describe this object as 'the cloud', meaning the Internet.

This term predates the current usage by several decades, and is in fact the source of the current usage

This is a gentle but pedantic reminder that, if you're going to make an absolute assertion, make sure it is the correct assertion.

Re:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (1, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552379)

Please don't let anyone get away with calling the internet the cloud!

Traditionally, when network engineers and administrators draw diagrams of networks, they represent the connection to the Internet as a big bumpy object not unlike a child's drawing of a cloud. I have heard old hackers who used to work in the telecommunications industry during the 80's and 70's describe this object as 'the cloud', meaning the Internet.

This term predates the current usage by several decades, and is in fact the source of the current usage

This is a gentle but pedantic reminder that, if you're going to make an absolute assertion, make sure it is the correct assertion.

I know where the term came from, that's one of the reasons I find it so annoying. :-(

We don't call resistors "jagged lines" and inductors "curly loops", so why call the internet "the cloud"?
It isn't actually a cloud, and saying "cloud" isn't any shorter or clearer than "internet" (in fact less clear).

It's just a new IT business fad which lets IT staff make something familiar sound new, I think.

Re:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (1)

kjots (64798) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552593)

It isn't actually a cloud, and saying "cloud" isn't any shorter or clearer than "internet" (in fact less clear).

Dude, there's like a hundred million things in the technical world that are called things that they're not based on nothing more then decades of habit. I mean, is a "bug" really just an insect? Does "bootstrap" really mean a piece of leather attached to a boot? To single out this one example is just splitting hairs.

Okay, so you don't like the term "The Cloud". That's cool, nothing wrong with that, but you have no grounds on which to object it. It is as valid a term as "bug" or "bootstrap" or countless others of which I'm sure the Slashdot community will happy to remind you.

You're assertion that no-one has any business calling the Internet "the cloud" is fundamentally flawed. End of story.

Re:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552771)

"Bug" is more concise than "a software flaw which causes behavior the developers didn't intend", "bootstrap" is more concise than "software which loads the boot-loader". "Cloud" is just "internet".

There are better examples though which make your point (like "firewall", which I think would be better as just "packet filter"), but these phrases are old and cast in stone, so there's no point trying to fight them anyway. It'd now, unfortunately, be more confusing to try and change them than to just stick with the status quo.

However "cloud" seems to be the latest thing, and so I'm still prepared to put up whatever little token resistance I can.
(I know it has older origins, but its use is only gaining momentum very recently. I checked Google Trends [google.com] to make sure I'm not going crazy.)


I dislike "Cloud" for much the same reason you probably dislike "the information super-highway". Words are words, I can call the internet whatever I want, but others don't have to accept my definition. If you're fine with "the information super-highway" and "web/pod/screencast" etc then you're not the kind of person my sig will resonate with.

Re:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (2, Insightful)

Urkki (668283) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552665)

Depends on where you are. If you're in the Internet could, then it's a fog, not a cloud ;-).

Anyway, to me "cloud" is not same as the Internet, it's roughly the same as "rest of the Internet". This is an important distinction! Local site is not in the cloud. Remote site (for example another office of the same company) usually is not be in the cloud either, or it could be considered a separate cloud, even though connection to it goes through the big Internet cloud.

The totality of Internet is not dependant on the observer. But the cloud is different for every observer, since at least the computer of the observer is not part of the cloud in their own frame of reference.

Fact check please? (4, Interesting)

Jack9 (11421) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551363)

With eight years of legacy code out there, it is likely that there are going to be a fairly large number of systems that will not migrate to PHP 5 in the near future, and a reasonable proportion of those that will not make the migration at all.

I question the validity of these assumptions. My first salaried job was programming PHP/FI 2 (1998). I cannot find a single product I have been involved with or even used in the past (which contains PHP code), that hasn't upgraded. Systems written in PHP could only benefit from the improvements in 5 and there's almost nothing written in PHP that's so critical* that it wouldn't be upgraded by the current developers or new developers trained in 5.

*This is both a side effect of the language design and the people who write it.

Can someone give some examples of products stuck in 4.0?

Re:Fact check please? (1)

adriccom (44869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551481)

While stretching the definition of product to include "some code that some guy wrote for us" I'd say .. half of our customers code? Plus a bunch of actual products, commercial software even, that our customers have licensed and depend on for their businesses. Obviously I can't share much detail.

Not that PHP4 isn't lossy, just that you are being hopelessly naive. Or hopeful. Either way, cut that out :)

Oh, and I don't think the backdoors and shells are updated fully to take advantage of 5. Backwards compat is very important to their markets :D

Re:Fact check please? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551629)

Ubersmith.

They provide billing automation and equipment management for lots of hosting companies and datacenters. They said that they're supposedly "working" on a PHP5 version, but that statement was said months ago.

Notice "Ubersmith does not support PHP 5.x at this time" on the order pages of both:
http://www.ubersmith.com/products/pro/order.php [ubersmith.com] and
http://www.ubersmith.com/products/lite/order.php [ubersmith.com]

From the looks of their blog, their appliance version supports PHP5, but not so sure about the self-hosted version.

Re:Fact check please? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551821)

I sell PHP scripts, and I'd estimate 30-50% of my customers are still using PHP 4. Many of them have told me they tried PHP 5, but it broke some other ancient script they were using. Or some are still using four year old versions of my scripts and refuse to update.

The users aren't programmers. You can't tell them it's easy to fix the little problems in their legacy scripts, because they struggle to upload files, let alone write code. They're going to stick with PHP 4 until they're dragged forward kicking and screaming... and even then they'll probably just switch to a web host that offers PHP 4.

As a result, even if I optimize for PHP 5 I have to keep compatibility with PHP 4 indefinitely in order to avoid losing customers.

Re:Fact check please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24552509)

Can someone give some examples of products stuck in 4.0?

If it still hasn't migrated or somehow feels it's hard, the product is either very crappy code or developers don't reserve their paychecks. Seriously.

Re:Fact check please? (1)

kamikaez (1202329) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552641)

eZ Publish was for a couple of years, but they got their php 5 version out late last year thanks to heavy community pressure. The instant effect was a 2x performance boost thanks to php 5(.1|2) alone.

The php 5 version (4.0) does not work in php 4, the reason is the difference in the reference system. Because they have one of the biggest oop php code bases around they had to do major rewrites twice (4.3 -> 4.4 and 4.4 -> 5.x). Looking back, it would probably been a good idea to skip 4.4 all together..

Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551389)

...aka Python 3.

Re:Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (0, Troll)

ya really (1257084) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551445)

Python 3 is still in beta. And python on the web? No thanks.

Re:Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (3, Interesting)

brianez21 (945805) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551483)

And python on the web? No thanks.

FYI - Google uses Python extensively on the web.

Re:Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (5, Interesting)

XorNand (517466) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551525)

So you're not personally familiar with python-based web development. There are a great many people out there that are though: Django [djangoproject.com] , Pythons [pylonshq.com] , Turbogears [turbogears.org] , Zope [zope.org] are all great places to start.

Re:Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (1)

ya really (1257084) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551583)

I'll take a look at the sites and mess around with it some. Python always look interesting to me, but I never thought of it as being useful on the web.

Re:Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (2, Informative)

Micah (278) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551935)

Yeah. Even without the frameworks, I like mod_python a whole lot more than PHP. PHP seems like a bunch of nasty hacks to me.

Re:Good time to migrate to PHP 7... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551727)

...aka Pythons on a Plane.

Obligatory post (2, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551431)

For a technology that has been in stable release since May 22, 2000, PHP 4 has finally reached the end of its official life.

I'd like to propose that Slashdot "editors" be stripped of that title, and from now on be referred to simply as "approvers" - there's obviously no editing involved in the job at all.

Re:Obligatory post (1)

Quartz25 (1195075) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551489)

You must be new here.

Re:Obligatory post (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551551)

In Soviet Russia, New Here Musts YOU!

Re:Obligatory post (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551555)

I'd like to propose that those who complain about Slashdot editing standards are now simply referred to as "whiners".

This is a blog - you're a guest here. Get over it.

Obligatory Crap (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551667)

I could quibble with your definitions of "blog" and "guest", but it doesn't really matter. Misinformation is misinformation, whether it's from a blog or a newspaper. People have a right, even a duty, to complain about somebody who sloppily shares "facts" that are really nonsense. It's not "whining", any more than it's "whining" to complain about a rock thrown through your window.

Re:Obligatory post (1)

Arimus (198136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552693)

Since when is /. a blog???

Suspect /. being a blog is news (hey, maybe that would be more news worthy than some of the news ;) ) to alot of people on here...

Re:Obligatory post (0, Offtopic)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551729)

I guess I won't be applying for that title. What, pray tell, is wrong with that sentence?

They even used "its" correctly, not "it's".

Re:Obligatory post (2, Interesting)

WhyMeWorry (982235) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551891)

Copiers would be a better term. The original article has the same problem. What was their excuse?

First step to get rid of PHP. Now... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24551471)

...when will that happen to PHP5? :P

You know what? (4, Interesting)

Ambush Commander (871525) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551491)

You know what? I'm sick and tired of the fact that every PHP related post to Slashdot ends up sludgefest of old jokes, one-line jabs at PHP, and misinformation.

Official ending of PHP4 support is a big thing in the PHP community. If you're a reader of Planet-PHP, you'll know this; for almost all of 08/08/08 there was nothing but end-of-life celebrations from the bloggers. The community has done an exceptional job at getting developers, open-source projects and hosters alike to migrate to PHP5 for such a heavily used language. And we will have to surmount even bigger difficulties for PHP6 and Unicode, which unlike PHP5, breaks backwards compatibility with any project that treats strings as binary data. Migrating PHP4 to PHP5 is not difficult; often it's as simple as an edit to the server migration. PHP6 will definitely demand code changes.

For those of us who use and "have to deal with" (yes, we have our annoyances too) with PHP on a daily basis, this is good news. For the rest of you, please contribute something meaningful, or forever hold your peace.

Re:You know what? (0, Redundant)

mseidl (828824) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551741)

Imagine how Bill Gates must feel...

So lonely...Oh so lonely...

Re:You know what? (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552437)

I'm sick and tired of the fact that every $language related post to Slashdot ends up sludgefest of old jokes, one-line jabs at $language, and misinformation.

Fixed it for you.

Upgrading is not that hard... (4, Interesting)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551605)

I went to PHP5 quite a while back. I started with 4 and had already been programing nice (long tags in html, program with globals off, etc.) so there was no issue for me, everything just worked on 5. I do have one script I found on sourceforge (dead project) that doesn't work on 5, probably used something deprecated from 3 slated for removal after 4. I don't expect conversion of that to be too serious either.

I think a lot of the FUD is being placed on ISPs who run PHP4 servers and may have outdated cpanels or other pre-set PHP apps. I would think maybe a weeks worth of work for most mom and pops to get the upgrade complete (a lot it setting up automating on any data upgrade conversions) but it's surely not the end of the world.

Go PHP 5! (5, Interesting)

GrouchoMarx (153170) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551617)

For those wondering how many projects will be left out in the cold, here's your answer:

http://gophp5.org/ [gophp5.org]

Over 100 PHP projects and products and over 200 web hosts that have been committed to PHP 5.2 and no earlier for over a year. GoPHP5 launched before the PHP development team announced an EOL for PHP 4. While I don't believe for a second that it was the only reason they made that decision, I also don't believe for a second that it didn't have a big influence on it.

The push to drop PHP 4 support came from people using PHP in production in the first place. Those of us who get paid to write PHP code are cheering at the top of our lungs, because now we can actually get real work done.

Go PHP 5!

Re:Go PHP 5! (1)

omfgnosis (963606) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552463)

With all due respect, why was PHP 4 being around preventing you from getting real work done (in 4 or 5)?

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 6 years ago | (#24551921)

.. let me say hooray! PHP5 is worlds ahead. Let me also say they're wrong about legacy systems being slow to migrate: PHP5 runs PHP4 code just fine (notwithstanding a few copy-on-write and unassigned reference issues, which are very easy to fix). PHP5, in this context, would be better called "Zend Engine 2", since that's what the real update is. PHP4 the language is essentially just a subset of PHP5. Incidentally (perhaps) the phpMyAdmin 3.0.0 beta just came out yesterday which sacrifices Zend Engine 1 (PHP4) support. It also drops MySQL 4 support, and I think lots of projects will follow suit; PHP4 is going to drag MySQL 4 with it, which is also great.

diFck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24552085)

fucking numb3rs, [goat.cx]

Awesome. (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552185)

Now I feel slightly better about having forced my colleagues to upgrade PHP to version 5.

In my defense, I was using array_walk_recursive, but I'm sure they were quite frustrated by the problems I created.

Migration woes (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24552337)

I see a lot of people saying that they're surprised anyone's still using PHP 4, when PHP 5 has been out for so long. Well, I can guarantee you there's a lot of legacy PHP 4 codebases out there; converting to 5 is not always as easy as going over what's in the migration page on php.net [php.net] . Just to give you an idea of the magnitude, we have tends of thousands of code files spread across numerous systems; our live web pool is around 100 machines, and we cannot take the website down in order to update it. (I can't tell you why.) So updates have to be made live. We don't have a proper staging environment, either, but we have come up with a number of (horrible) mechanisms for dealing with this situation.

In our particular (unfortunate) case, we had about half a dozen custom PHP extensions that were all written by our former CTO, who left the company about a year and a half ago. He wasn't really big into documentation, and our technical management was very poor; we had a guy go through our 65,000-file codebase and make all the little tweaks necessary for a vanilla 4-to-5 migration, but it took us six months of wrangling with all these extensions to get them to work well under 5.1 (we're still having trouble with 5.2).

Plus, it's not just a matter of dealing with the technology; like a lot of companies, management here doesn't like to put resources into things that don't have visible benefits -- and cleaning up the codebase/rebuilding the dev environment just isn't something they see a lot of value in. (We've finally convinced them it's important and needs to be done; we're operating without source control for about 99% of our code. YES, I KNOW.) We didn't even seriously start pushing to get things up to PHP 5 until January, and it took until July to actually make it happen.

The point is, mismanagement and bad development environment/codebase design early on (several years ago) have meant that we're upgrading to PHP 5 years later than we should have. It's not that we didn't know how to do it once we decided to.

Re:Migration woes (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#24552765)

You have my deepest sympathies. That sounds like a thankless task. Hopefully, the measures you are taking are being well documented and explained to management to prevent any similar mistakes in the future.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>