The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
You make it sound as if you will never, ever, accept any sort of critisism of your favorite programming language...
First: Any programming language can be (ab)used to write really obfuscated code. Some programmer subcultures tend to write unreadable code, whatever language is used, but if that is PHP, it leads other people to associate unreadable code with that language. Furthermore, if most subcultures (ab)use the language that way, the few programmers that use it properly might not be strong enough to save the reputation of the language.
Second: If you don't know/understand the "philosophy" of a language (or of whatever) - the rationale for the mechanisms offered, the inteded usage pattern - then it always looks messy. To the guy who understands the reasoning behind the design, and is trained in the same thought patterns as the programmer of the obfuscated code, the code is not at all obfuscated. Nine out of ten times claims of "obfuscation", "unreadable" or "messy" code (or coding style) really says "I am lacking the background to understand why it is done that way".
Surely, some philosophies are easier to grasp than others, and some rather elegant programming languages failed in the marketplace because its protagonists were mostly programmers rather than teachers (of the philosophy of the language). Some languages excel in clean and simple basic mechanisms but rely on the programmer to handle any sort of abstractions, which some programmers do better than others. (Everyone understands that we need higher basic abstractions than Turing machine marks, but many lisp programmers don't understand that we need higher basic abstractions than car and cdr.) And then, some languages offer mechanisms that is an open invitation to obfuscation. My favorite example is Fortran 'return k': A function can take (numeric) labels as arguments. 'return 4' means: Do not return to the statement following the function call, but to the label supplied as the 4th argument. More recent languages provide several comparable mechanisms, such as switch fallthrough and address-of-operators that might have null effect, but none as grave as 'return k'.
I have worked some, but not much, with PHP. It will never become my favorite language, but I would never agree than you can't write well structured, readable code in PHP. I don't think obfuscated code is a bigger problem with PHP than with, say, classical C.
First: Any programming language can be (ab)used to write really obfuscated code.
Some programmer subcultures tend to write unreadable code, whatever language is
used, but if that is PHP, it leads other people to associate unreadable code
with that language. Furthermore, if most subcultures (ab)use the language
that way, the few programmers that use it properly might not be strong enough to
save the reputation of the language.
And some just come that way out of the box. :p
I like this:
IX1 D IXDUP ;22*130
F DDUCRFE=0:0 S DDUCRFE=$O(^DD(DDUCFI,0,"IX",DDUCXREF,DDUCRFI,DDUCRFE)) Q:DDUCRFE'>0 D
. I $D(^DD(DDUCRFI,DDUCRFE,0))[0 D WFI W """IX"" Subscript: "_DDUCXREF_" " D WFE,WMS D:DDUCFIX IX2 Q
. I $D(^DD(DDUCRFI,DDUCRFE,1,0))=0,$D(^DD(DDUCRFI,DDUCRFE,1))=10 S:DDUCFIX ^DD(DDUCRFI,DDUCRFE,1,0)="^.1"
. S DDUCRFE1=0,DDUCRFEX="" F S DDUCRFE1=$O(^DD(DDUCRFI,DDUCRFE,1,DDUCRFE1)) Q:DDUCRFE1'>0 S DDUCRFEX=$G(^(DDUCRFE1,0)) I $P(DDUCRFEX,U,2)=DDUCXREF K DDUCRFEX Q
. I $D(DDUCRFEX) W !?5,"Cross-reference logic is missing for """,DDUCXREF,""" x-ref" D:DDUCFIX IX2 Q
K DDUCRFE1 Q
Well, when I say "like", I mean No, you will never ever ever get me to program with m-code.
Another day, another "mock the poster" post. This time with the added benefit of mocking PHP as well. While you're at it, my shirt's particularly loud today - perhaps you'd like to go for the tri-defecta.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
Similar thing happened to my folks computer a few years ago. Brand new with the OS already installed as they are these days. No network connection, no internet, no nothing. Network adapter can't even get an IP address. The reason? Preinstalled McAfee.
If you thought that was bad, my brother had a McAfee trial pre-installed when he bought his laptop.
When it expired, it blocked his internet connection. So, I thought, let's remove it, then.
Well, no. Going to control panel, selecting McAfee Security Center (or whatever it's called) and clicking Change/Remove did nothing, except making Windows Installer think it was running an installer, preventing me from removing anything else.
I had to go through Safe Mode to successfully remove it.
A couple of years earlier when helping someone else, I had a similar problem with Norton Internet security, where removing Norton also removed the 'System Tools' directory in the Start Menu.
tldr; Seems like the Antivirus tools are becoming viruses themselves.
Despite me personally not liking McAfee, it has nothing to do with it.
Hooking network level stuff in Windows at such low level is really nasty and hacky usually. Especially if you want to keep it compatible with windows XP.
I've seen this 'no traffic allowed, even DHCP' error happening with everything from Norton to F-secure to Kaspersky to ZoneAlarm. Usually fixes with a complete reinstall of the software.
That's nothing. 9 years ago my sister tried installing (college mandated) Symantec Corporate AV on top of the Symantec Home AV her gateway came preinstalled with. The install failed catastrophically leaving her with no working AV, no networking, and no working AV Uninstallers. I spent about 4 hours of quality time with regedit manually scrubbing every trace out before things started working again.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
My father-in-law, unplugged his external HD drive while copying a movie to it, it seems that the drive was running out of space (500 GB full of movies).
Now the drive freezes every window PC to which it is connected. I took the disk to my office and connected it to my work PC running Archlinux, after almost a minute the disk was in a readable state and I was ready to backup the data (Please try to save my movies! he said).
That happened on Monday, I'm still copying the data at a 500KB/s transfer rate, there are still 300GB pending, and I not so sure the disk can be saved.
I get those all the time, just finished one for one of the Wife's friend "as a favor". Usually takes a good amount of time to clean those buggers out. I always tell them "Just say no to toolbars!" (I know that most of them are installed without their knowledge.)
All I can say is RKill is indespensible for helping to clean some of that %$#@! out.