Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA vs. php war ;-)
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2010
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 104815
interpreted = N
texte = How about I start with one that I wrote a function to emulate WebDNA's capabilities... $location="index.php; header('location: http://'.$_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'].dirname($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']).'/'.$location); (Note: Can not be used after any other headers are written) versus [text show=f]location=index.dna[/text] [redirect [location]] (Note: Can be anywhere on the page) Dan Strong wrote: > Provide me with these accurate comparisons and I'll do a 2nd > "corrected" vid. Note: the original vid cannot be "replaced:" on youtube. > > -Dan Strong > http://www.DanStrong.com > > > On 2/19/2010 12:10 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: >> Paul Willis wrote: >>> At the risk of being chased off the list some commentators do have a >>> point. >>> >>> A lot of the PHP example code is padded out unnecessarily. Why are >>> the tags included on separate lines, why isn't there a >>> similar at the top of each example? Not to >>> mention that many setups work with short PHP tags >>> >>> You don't have to set a variable and then echo it, you can just >>> print it straight out etc., for instance... >>> >>> >> $browser = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']; >>> print "$browser"; >>> ?> >>> >>> could be... >>> >>> >>> >>> There are also various (unnecessary) lines of error checking code >>> included in the PHP samples. >>> >>> The thing is WebNDA is simpler to code than PHP we don't have to >>> 'cheat' to prove it. >>> >>> is still longer and messier >>> than [browsername] >>> >>> Paul >> >> >> I agree 100% Paul (though I love the general presentation of Dan's >> vid!). Comparisons have to be accurate else you lose "clout". Many of >> the examples being put out there, including many of them on >> webdna.us, could be presented much more accurately and WebDNA will >> still "win" the majority of them. You are right. >> >> Donovan >> >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list
. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > Bug Reporting: > http://forum.webdna.us/eucabb.html?page=topics&category=288 > >
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
How about I start with one that I wrote a function to emulate WebDNA's capabilities... $location="index.php; header('location: http://'.$_SERVER['HTTP_HOST'].dirname($_SERVER['PHP_SELF']).'/'.$location); (Note: Can not be used after any other headers are written) versus [text show=f]location=index.dna[/text] [redirect [location]] (Note: Can be anywhere on the page) Dan Strong wrote: > Provide me with these accurate comparisons and I'll do a 2nd > "corrected" vid. Note: the original vid cannot be "replaced:" on youtube. > > -Dan Strong > http://www.DanStrong.com > > > On 2/19/2010 12:10 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: >> Paul Willis wrote: >>> At the risk of being chased off the list some commentators do have a >>> point. >>> >>> A lot of the PHP example code is padded out unnecessarily. Why are >>> the tags included on separate lines, why isn't there a >>> similar at the top of each example? Not to >>> mention that many setups work with short PHP tags >>> >>> You don't have to set a variable and then echo it, you can just >>> print it straight out etc., for instance... >>> >>> >> $browser = $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']; >>> print "$browser"; >>> ?> >>> >>> could be... >>> >>> >>> >>> There are also various (unnecessary) lines of error checking code >>> included in the PHP samples. >>> >>> The thing is WebNDA is simpler to code than PHP we don't have to >>> 'cheat' to prove it. >>> >>> is still longer and messier >>> than [browsername] >>> >>> Paul >> >> >> I agree 100% Paul (though I love the general presentation of Dan's >> vid!). Comparisons have to be accurate else you lose "clout". Many of >> the examples being put out there, including many of them on >> webdna.us, could be presented much more accurately and WebDNA will >> still "win" the majority of them. You are right. >> >> Donovan >> >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ > Bug Reporting: > http://forum.webdna.us/eucabb.html?page=topics&category=288 > >
Matthew Bohne
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Running webcat 6 on Windows XP Prof. (2005)
[protect] error page (1997)
WebCat2final1 crashes (1997)
RE: [WebDNA] WebDNA frameworks and beginners (2012)
[WebDNA] setcookie in IE11 (2014)
taxRate is fine but taxTotal isn't (1997)
FW: Shipping calculations (1997)
WebCat2b12 Mac.acgi--[searchstring] bug (1997)
[WebDNA] grep again (2010)
OT-listserver stuff -WAS-webcat method for waiting specific amount of time? (2000)
overload (2002)
File Uploads... (1997)
WebTEN vs webSTARtopic (1998)
New reserved words for [tags] (2000)
Quickie question on the email templates (1997)
cart token (2000)
GoLive CyberStudio 1.0.1 (1997)
Format question WC Mac f3 (1997)
Showif, Hideif reverse logic ? (1997)
WebCat2 several catalogs? (1997)