This sentence really got me thinking. "Deserved" is some sort of moralistic word, I'm not sure how it applies to a tool, unless it means to apply to the makers and/or users of the tool.
And I guess it makes some sense. A bad reputation is a sort of social communication utilizing shame and stigma. Maybe it causes people not to use PHP without having to pay the cost of really understanding why, which is likely only accessible with lots of experience and/or study.
This is basically by definition an inaccurate bias, of lacking nuance, but perhaps a net good. If PHP was such a poor tool for productivity and security then it was probably good if shame and stigma were helping people to use better tools without paying the cost themselves first.
But it's always very frustrating if you actually know what's bad and what's good about a thing, or even just know that it has both bad and good parts (even if you don't know precisely which is which), and you see a memetic belief held up as truth rather than acknowledged as a useful heuristic.
And while it feels dirty, maybe this shame and stigma also serves to influence the creators of the language and its ecosystem to make it better. I don't know. I hope there are better ways than shame and stigma but I'm just a d00d writing a post on a web forum.
What does seem clear to me, though, is if is a good tool NOW, as a result of years of work by the people who kept at it, then a bad reputation is no good anymore; no longer a positive force but a negative one.
Is C undefined behavior and use after free "shame" or "stigma"?
JavaScript has bad parts and design (and big community that claims it is fine language), Perl has great design and small community (and everyone can bash it), PHP has horrible design flows and a big community that does not address issues from "Fractal of bad design" but claims language is fixed.
As experienced developer I know what good design is. This article saved a lot of novices from trapping into badly designed language as a first one.
At least some PHP proponents makes fools of themselves:
> This of course is coming, like usual, from someone who spent a significant portion of their life in academia and then moved to R&D and still has yet to make a dent in the world, or likely their student loans [1].
Words of true believer. PHP can't transition to not bad language because of such believers. Those who can see faults left. And what's left is echo chamber. There would be no break of backward compatibility. I've checked, from design perspective nothing changed.
All I see is community discarding critique without addressing it or even understanding it.
I think in this case "deserved" was used in the same sense as "warranted," although I realize this doesn't change the main point you're making.
What you're getting at is that people can be influenced by factors other than objective truths. I admit that I am someone who tries to avoid making decisions based on word-of-mouth or "reputation," but you can't deny that only considering objective truths takes a lot of work.
Sometimes I just want to buy a keyboard, not read and apply "The 50 Tenets of Keyboard Comparison" to find the objectively best (for me) keyboard.
It makes sense how this attitude can bleed into decision-making as a whole, even for higher-impact decisions like programming language choice. So I wouldn't discredit (or lower the reputation of ;) ) too much the folks who don't always go by objective truth.
This sentence really got me thinking. "Deserved" is some sort of moralistic word, I'm not sure how it applies to a tool, unless it means to apply to the makers and/or users of the tool.
And I guess it makes some sense. A bad reputation is a sort of social communication utilizing shame and stigma. Maybe it causes people not to use PHP without having to pay the cost of really understanding why, which is likely only accessible with lots of experience and/or study.
This is basically by definition an inaccurate bias, of lacking nuance, but perhaps a net good. If PHP was such a poor tool for productivity and security then it was probably good if shame and stigma were helping people to use better tools without paying the cost themselves first.
But it's always very frustrating if you actually know what's bad and what's good about a thing, or even just know that it has both bad and good parts (even if you don't know precisely which is which), and you see a memetic belief held up as truth rather than acknowledged as a useful heuristic.
And while it feels dirty, maybe this shame and stigma also serves to influence the creators of the language and its ecosystem to make it better. I don't know. I hope there are better ways than shame and stigma but I'm just a d00d writing a post on a web forum.
What does seem clear to me, though, is if is a good tool NOW, as a result of years of work by the people who kept at it, then a bad reputation is no good anymore; no longer a positive force but a negative one.