News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charl... by Hasu on Thursday October 03, 2024 @09:19AM (#41730521)
The idea that no one is allowed to criticize anything unless they can and have done better is one of the most perniciously stupid ideas out there that just won't go away.

If the parent poster is secretly Linus Torvalds, do you walk away in shame because he HAS done a project with better engineering? Or are the criticisms, perhaps, objectively valid or invalid, and worth engaging with regardless of the merits of the person making the criticisms?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charl... by joshmanders on Thursday October 03, 2024 @01:20PM (#41732749)
Well when their whole argument boils down to "php sucks" and they back up their claims with a document that was invalid 12 years ago when it was written, they better have something to back up these criticism.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charl... by angoragoats on Thursday October 03, 2024 @03:37PM (#41734147)
Perhaps you should engage with the claims rather than the person. As someone who doesn't frequently use PHP, the criticisms in the linked post from 2012 seem valid if the facts presented are true -- there's some pretty weird, and in a few cases, downright dangerous behavior presented there.

What is invalid, specifically, about that blog post?

[ Parent | on HN ]