If you really didn't already know about Rasmus Lerdorf's anti-intellectual attitude (who admits to being "really, really bad" and a "terrible coder", but still thinks he's "better than you"), then here are some more quotes:
There are people who actually like programming. I don't understand why they like programming.
I'm not a real programmer. I throw together things until it works then I move on. The real programmers will say "Yeah it works but you're leaking memory everywhere. Perhaps we should fix that." I’ll just restart Apache every 10 requests.
I do care about memory leaks but I still don't find programming enjoyable.
I don't know how to stop it, there was never any intent to write a programming language [...] I have absolutely no idea how to write a programming language, I just kept adding the next logical step on the way.
I was really, really bad at writing parsers. I still am really bad at writing parsers.
I really don't like programming. I built this tool to program less so that I could just reuse code.
I actually hate programming, but I love solving problems.
For all the folks getting excited about my quotes. Here is another - Yes, I am a terrible coder, but I am probably still better than you :)
It's a leaking ceiling, a bucket under the leak ostensibly 'fixes' your original problem of water spilling out onto the floor, but now you've got the problem that at some point, the bucket will fill up.
It's rare for most problems you face in the workplace for the difficult part to be actually solving the problem. It's solving it in a way that doesn't just create three other messes elsewhere, in a way that somebody else can come along and understand how the problem was solved and in a way that doesn't hamstring you in the future.
Some of these quotes are really baffling. I mean, he must be being facetious or something.
Jamie is facetious. Rasmus is just incompetent.
Additionally, the project has really moved on. Admittedly, there are people who still code in php 5.5 and don't use a framework, or roll their own, but their experience does not reflect on how pleasant php can be. Coding in php without using the ecosystem is like walking across town instead of driving.
Do you consider PHP 5.3.7 "moving on"?
> 5.3.7 upgrade warning: [22-Aug-2011] Due to unfortunate issues with 5.3.7 (see bug#55439) users should postpone upgrading until 5.3.8 is released (expected in a few days).
No seriously, he's literally as careless as he claims to be, and his lack of giving a shit about things that are extremely important has caused actual serious security problems, like breaking crypt() by checking in sloppy buggy code that would have caused a unit test to fail, but without bothering to run the unit tests (because so many of them failed anyway, so who cares??), and then MAKING A RELEASE of PHP 5.3.7 with, OF ALL THINGS, a broken untested crypt()!
Do you think that's just his sense of humor, a self deprecating joke, breaking then releasing crypt() without testing, that's funny in some context? What context would that be? Do you just laugh and shrug it off with "Let Rasmus be Rasmus!"
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/jsudd/you_see_...
>r314434 (rasmus): Make static analyzers happy
>r315218 (stas): Unbreak crypt() (fix bug #55439) # If you want to remove static analyser messages, be my guest, but please run unit tests after
http://svn.php.net/viewvc/php/php-src/trunk/ext/standard/php...
https://plus.google.com/113641248237520845183/posts/g68d9RvR...
>Rasmus Lerdorf
>+Lorenz H.-S. We do. See http://gcov.php.net
>You can see the code coverage, test case failures, Valgrind reports and more for each branch.
>The crypt change did trigger a test to fail, we just went a bit too fast with the release and didn't notice the failure. This is mostly because we have too many test failures which is primarily caused by us adding tests for bug reports before actually fixing the bug. I still like the practice of adding test cases for bugs and then working towards making the tests pass, however for some of these non-critical bugs that are taking a while to change we should probably switch them to XFAIL (expected fail) so they don't clutter up the test failure output and thus making it harder to spot new failures like this crypt one.