<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>PHPDeveloper.org</title>
    <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org</link>
    <description>Up-to-the Minute PHP News, views and community</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 22:30:36 -0500</pubDate>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[Marco Tabini's Blog: Someone please throw Hiveminds a comma key]]></title>
      <guid>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/6747</guid>
      <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/6747</link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p>
In response to <a href="http://www.hiveminds.co.uk/node/3164">this recent article</a> from the Hiveminds website, <i>Marco Tabini</i> has a <a href="http://blogs.phparch.com/mt/?p=130">few choice words</a> about some of the topics they cover in the article, and cover incorrectly.
</p>
<blockquote>
Over the last few years, I've made it a point of trying to respond to at least some of the "PHP is dead"-type articles that crop up on the Net from time to time. The latest one comes from <a href="http://www.hiveminds.co.uk/node/3164">Hiveminds</a> and reveals a complete misunderstanding of almost every point it covers.
</blockquote>
<p>
He notes that though the article seems to be a coherent whole for why PHP is dwindling, it's "based on nothing more than a string of misinformed concepts cobbled together to give the appearance that the author knows what he or she is talking about". <i>Marco</i> <A href="http://blogs.phparch.com/mt/?p=130">comes back</a> against each of the points made in the article, setting things right and eliminating some of the FUD (fear, uncertainly, and doubt) that the Hiveminds article spreads.
</p>]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:09:00 -0600</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
