[darrelld]

You hear the same argument for C / C++ but you don't see people putting it down as much as PHP.

[0xffff2]

That's probably because C/++ don't have good drop in alternatives. If I want to write a website, there are at least half a dozen equally mature languages to choose from. If I want to write any kind of embedded systems code, C is almost always going to be far and away the easiest way to go.

[pessimizer]

Not as much, but an awful lot, and in similar ways.

There's a difference in that PHP originated as a low-quality templating language, and that C/C++ are historical monuments of computing that most of the infrastructure of the world and most of the interpreted languages of the world run on.

There's not much of a difference in people calling both old, only used by dinosaurs, essentially unsafe, and the root cause of all bugs being choosing to use them in the first place.

[wtetzner]

The dangerous features of C/C++ gives you something useful in return -- low level control of memory. The dangerous features of PHP don't provide any benefits. It's dangerous because of poor design.

[lmz]

The beginner's C / C++ programs don't usually get put on the Internet (or even on a local network).

[general_failure]

There is no such thing as a bad program. If it works, it's fine. Really...

[thekingofspain]

It's bad if it's susceptible to running an attacker's arbitrary code.

[enraged_camel]

The difference is that PHP is far more accessible to the average beginner than C/C++.

[MaulingMonkey]

Sure I do, just not in the web dev community because they're generally seeing more PHP to warn about than C / C++ to warn about.