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:
Soft Return character? (2000)
Using Cookie for client specific info? (1997)
Copyright ? (1997)
WC2b15 File Corruption (1997)
Auto entering Friday's date in a field (2002)
Converting spaces to + in results list (2000)
Dynamic Generation of PDFs? (2003)
Categories and Sub-categories (2003)
setitems, one more thing (1997)
Re:WebDNA made easier? (1998)
New command suggestion (was Modifying databasesmanually) (1997)
Emailer errors (1997)
Encrypting WebDNA Templates (1999)
Webcatalog server support (1997)
and vs or vs not (1998)
WebCatalog for Postcards ? (1997)
Updating a database once per day - An example (1998)
Emailer setup (1997)
webcat- multiple selection in input field (1997)
Cart questions (1997)