Drugs can be helpful, but it's important to find a good doctor first. A lot of doctors will just try lots of different meds and see what sticks. When you're dealing with toenail fungus, that's ok, but when it's your brain, the result can be catastrophic. And if the drugs turn out to be wrong, getting off can be a nightmare. Google "brain shivers" for a good example. In my case, CBT has been a much bigger, more lasting help.
I cannot overstate how important this is. I had a doctor hand out pills like candy and the brain shivers are devastating (I've had them for about 8 days on my way off Pristiq). All kinds of therapy are roughly equivalent in efficacy (I don't have the citation on this, but I believe it was on HN a couple weeks ago), but the most important part is finding someone you can trust.
My psychiatrist is now fired after playing games with my brain and missing some pretty obvious calls, but my therapist is indispensable.
Every time I see an article like this I thank God I'm not using PHP. It's always, "Remember to always use do_something() instead of dosomething() or else something will suck for some reason."
This article is a serious micro-optimization and, in general, not something people should be that worried about. If you nit-pick enough, all platforms have these sorts of issues.
In a good language, include/require[_once] should all be reduced to the same one statement, e.g. Python's import. Don't you think it's a ridiculous notion that the distinctions between include and require (and the once variants) are meaningful enough that programmers should be able to express them?
PHP using __autoload and namespaces looks and feels exactly like Python using imports. You see, the PHP developers have been actively improving a lot of aspects of the language recently, and the latest release, 5.3, had a ton of really nice improvements and features, such as namespaces.
I'm not going to say PHP is the greatest language every invented, and in fact I am a huge fan of Python. But I do not think PHP deserves the "In a good language..." treatment. It is a language that is getting better everyday, with a strong and vibrant development community and massive user adoption. It is a good language.
A language whose maintainers decided that, in the fifth major release, `goto` needed to be added is not getting better. Nor is one whose maintainers rationalize the choice of backslash as a third, distinct scope resolution operator -- instance-attribute, class-attribute, and now namespace-member.
The sheer number of fails with PHP warrants the 'good language' treatment. The fact that,
08 === 0
alone is enough to make it deserving of this treatment.
Especially with a Rails-like framework like CakePHP, I find that my programing time is lessened dramatically because of the framework, and my processing time is much lower than Rails because most of the servers I work on are optimized out the wazoo for PHP instead of Ruby.
Don't you think it's a ridiculous notion that the distinctions between include and require (and the once variants) are meaningful enough that programmers should be able to express them?
Not at all. They mean different things, and they're used for different things. Import-if-it's-available is include, import-or-error-if-missing is require, and they're both quite handy. The once variants do what most programmers would expect, but the non-once ones do what most template users would expect. Should the "once" have been a flag? Yeah, why not? But that doesn't mean the functionality shouldn't even exist.
The `once` distinction is a product of bad design and it only exists when you have a language that is both the templating (view) language and the processing language. To those of us accustomed to good languages, it's like saying "the language allows me to call render_once() so that I don't re-render a template I've already rendered."
When the problem is framed thus, most people would recognize that the solution to that problem is a better understanding on the part of the programmer of the flow of control inside his/her application.
The error handing should be done with exceptions. As it is, there are many errors in PHP which are recoverable, but they don't throw exceptions but instead emit other kinds of non-catchable failures. In Python, you would simply `try` to import a module and `catch` a failure to do so, e.g. if that module wasn't installed.
To those of us accustomed to good languages, it's like saying "the language allows me to call render_once() so that I don't re-render a template I've already rendered."
Right, and there's a case for that in languages that need a template library, as well. In some cases, you want to re-render a template for some other place in the output, and in other cases, you'd want to use a previously cached rendered template, and both of those cases are useful.
So, I agree that the distinction between the cases is the result of PHP being both a full programming language and a built-in templating language. I don't view this (in and of itself) as a bad thing, though I would quibble with the exact implementation, which is how it is for historical reasons.
When the problem is framed thus, most people would recognize that the solution to that problem is a better understanding on the part of the programmer of the flow of control inside his/her application.
Since you've already agreed that having the option for rerendering is a feature of including templating as a core feature, it seems like this statement is equivalent to declaring that templating should never be a core feature of a programming language. It's less about the flow of control and more about whether the result is cached. Even programmers who have a good understand of their programs' flow of control occasionally find memoization useful. :)
*_once doesn't memoize, however. The result of include_once called twice isn't that the same template is repeated, but rather that the first call outputs the template and the second call is silent.
include/require_once are not statements to the effect of "return same output as the last time I include/required this" but rather "if I haven't already include/required this, do it now."
It's a very difficult proposition to say that good programming requires the latter capability.
Uh, that's what import in Python does. It doesn't reimport; it ignores the import request if you've already done it, right? (I must confess I haven't used Python a lot in the last few years, but it used to be my primary language).
So, if you're willing to accept my assertion that Python is a good programming language, then you'll have to agree that that latter capability is the default in at least some good programming languages.
The former capability to which you refer, though, is quite often useful for including template fragments, so I wouldn't want to throw it out, either. If you said, "Hey, these only seem conceptually similar because of the name, and they're really different things", I'd be willing to go with that, I think. Or, if you were to say, "Hey, these are so similar that we shouldn't have a whole separate name for the behavior switch", I'd agree with that, as it's my position. However, it seems as though you're arguing that one of the two behaviors is never needed in a good web application domain language, and I disagree with that.
First, it's important to understand that include/require_once is useful in PHP because of a particular pattern -- include/require the files containing classes and functions I need; these statements are placed at the top of every script that needs those definitions. It's an error in PHP to declare the same function twice (to redeclare). So if you include script A and B, and both depend on C, then you have to use require_once in A and B when they call in C. This way, anyone calling in both A and B won't trigger a redeclaration error.
This use case is not relevant to people using the statements to pull in templates, because you would deliberately place the require statement where you needed it. Someone using the same partial template in the header of a page and in the footer of a page would not care if the template had been invoked before -- "place this in the footer unless you already placed it somewhere else in the document (or even if you simply included it and threw it away, or emailed it to someone, or anything else at all)" would be a very poorly written template.
So what we have is the case that a set of processing scripts all include the same file at the top and this could potentially trigger redeclaration errors. So instead of addressing the fact that the interpreter cannot distinguish a common pattern (multiple inclusion) from something that really isn't even an error (redeclaration), we have four statements that serve very minor variations of the same function.
There are two binary choices here: require or include and once or not once. The distinction between include and require is totally unnecessary -- in what case would you want to optionally include another file, but not even receive notification or change your behavior depending on whether the file was able to be included? The _once distinction is only a guard against redeclaration, and it's beyond me why it matters that something was declared multiple times -- or why the programmer needs to count the number of inclusions.
Ideally, calling in a template would be different from calling in essential definitions, and would be treated differently.
BTW in Python, the import statement is idempotent -- importing multiple times has the same effect as importing once.
> The `once` distinction is a product of bad design and it only exists when you have a language that is both the templating (view) language and the processing language.
PHP takes it's cues from C -- that's where the idea of include() and require() come from. These functions pre-date the existence of OOP in PHP. There was a time when even the _once() functions didn't exist and you had to manage that yourself.
It's best to think of these functions as low-level building blocks you can use to build on your own abstraction layer. I never call those functions directly.
> The error handing should be done with exceptions.
PHP supports many styles of development. If you prefer errors, you can have those. If you prefer exceptions, you can convert all errors to exceptions with only a few lines of code (there is even a built in exception type for this purpose).
That certainly wasn't my intention specifically. I mentioned htmlspecialchars because it was the example being used upthread, but any API with analogous functionality is potentially subject to similar provisos, and if any surrounding cultural element encourages its use without thinking through the syntax layers, it can have a similar effect. I assumed this was implicit.
You could argue that it's morally wrong because most other Mefi-ists assume that the rules are being followed, so breaking the rules is deceptive. But Metafilter discussions bore the hell out of me, so I don't really know what the hell they think.
Every time I have to deal with the health care system, I feel like I'm going back in time. Doctors that can't even communicate by email. Redundant record keeping. So much lost information. So much lost data. So much waste. Every time I have a problem with my insurance, I have to call a 800 number and sort things out with a human being paid money to do what software could do.
I haven't used a table for layout in 6-7 years, and although floated columns were initially difficult, I quickly found them to be very easy and more reliable than tables. These kinds of rants usually come from programmers who don't want to take the time to understand how CSS works, and when it doesn't "just work" the way they expect, they blame CSS. That said, CSS definitely needs improvement. I hope the flexible box model gains traction. I find that to be a more natural way to lay out pages, although the syntax seems a little clumsy.
I read it as saying that most CEOs are skilled but interchangeable workers, like bus drivers. It takes skill, but the route is set, by the board, by shareholders, by expectations. Of course the metaphor breaks down pretty quickly, but I think it's apt. Jobs took Apple in directions that few CEOs could even imagine, let alone implement. Most would have driven Apple straight off a cliff.
