Official Support For PHP 4 Ends 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."
Good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the way progress is made.
Re:wow FUDSTER (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:wow FUDSTER (Score:4, Insightful)
And I can build PHP4 or PHP5 from source, or intall binaries, without sending any money at all to Newegg.
OOP is Overyped (Score:3, Insightful)
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:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
On the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)
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:As a big fan of PHP who cut his teeth on PHP4 . (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am glad to see that the PHP community, particularly Stefan Esser, can continue to support the system even after the vendor stops....unlike Microsoft, which seems determined to drag all of its products down with closed source.
There, fixed that for you.
That is also a valid statement. It is good to see community support continue, especially to ease the transition. Your comment about Microsoft closed source nature is also very perceptive - access to the source code make the difference between good community legacy support and bad community legacy support.
Re:wow FUDSTER (Score:2, Insightful)
For one thing, if I have a class called Fruit, and I create a new subclass which extends Fruit, say Apple, then the following code samples are equivalent:
class Apple extends Fruit {
function Fruit() {
echo 'I am an apple';
parent::Fruit('apple');
}
}
and
class Apple extends Fruit {
public function __construct() {
echo 'I am an apple';
parent::__construct('apple');
}
}
However, if I now rename the parent class to RipenedOvary, in the first example I will also need to change every reference to Fruit(); in the second example I will only need to change the first line.