| > by all means you can write bad code in good languages I think the main criticism of the GP was the fact that you use the expression "good languages" without defining what makes a language "good". > not be the best paradigm always same as above, what makes a paradigm "best"? > vast improvement on inline procedural PHP. but why you assume that the majority of PHP codebases are written in an "inline procedural" style? Do you have any evidence? Regarding the "procedural" part, the only large project that is not OOP-based is Wordpress, and even there spaghetti code (which I assume is what you mean by "inline") is AFAIK frowned upon by the community. > the fact that modelling tools are so explicit and forced on the user You need to accept the fact that many people may not like the "opinionated" nature of some language, (in fact that inflexibility that you mentioned is something I dislike about Java); often, a language may or may not be the right tool for a specific job precisely because of those opinionated bits. |
The statement I made is that more consistent and "opinionated" languages encourage better code. They don't enforce it, just encourage it.
It is my opinion that this is valuable.
I did define "good", internally consistent languages with strong guidelines for developers. I made no statements about mature PHP codebases as they are irrelevant to my argument. I do accept that people prefer less "opinionated" languages, I too fall into this camp, but I am no longer a new developer, as such this point is entirely irrelevant to what I was saying.
Nitpicking individual points whilst misconstruing what I said is neither useful or appreciated.