* Brian Candler <B.Candler / pobox.com> [030506 12:06]:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 02:36:21PM +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
> > ....and what can we learn from PHP's rapid rise to success?

> > I've seen quite a few jobs which require PHP experience lately and I 
> > wonder why; what's PHP got that Ruby doesn't?

A massive user base, for starters :)
Speaking personally , I'm moving to ruby because Perl6 looks absolutely
horrible  - why someone would break backwards compatibility in a 12 year
old language is beyond me - and if I'm going to learn another language
it sure as hell isn't going to be Perl *again*!

I've done OOP in Java up to now, but being a BSD user I'm getting
frustrated at a cross-platform language which only has decent performance on
Sparc/windows/Linux.

> Perhaps another interesting question to ask is: why has PHP not taken off as
> a general-purpose scripting language? 

I think the comparision between PHP and Ruby is a bit strained, since
PHP is (as others said) very closely tied to web development.
(I don't know enough about eRuby to compare them).

If you want new users, wait for perl 6 to ship. Seriously.
Reading the Pickaxe I've felt a real head start for already knowing
regeces, etc, the language feels like Perl from the future....

> Incidentally, I had a look at some of his PHP code, and it is written in a
> very object-oriented style with lots of $this->dosomething(arg) calls. For
> someone used to that horrible syntax, Ruby is an easy sell :-)
> http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop.php

Again, versus Perls OOP (i.e. an afterthought bodged onto the language
where data encapsulation is impossible and you can see into all the
objects, and all that IS_A/Exporter:: stuff) Ruby is wonderful.

I have quick-and-dirty-thirty-liners with class definitions in now,
because it's so straightforward. 

THANK YOU MATZ for a scripting language where parts don't snap off
the objects and choke small children.

--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns