I did read it, that's why I used that concept. I don't think calling me a "jerkhole" really adds to the dialogue. I just disagree. The author points it out because he doesn't want to hear it. That doesn't make it a less correct counter-argument. I think accomplishing the goal is most important.
Secondly, I don't think PHP is a bad tool. You can accomplish tasks very quickly in PHP. It is certainly not the fastest language, of course, it's not compiled, but it has a lot of great features. A lot of the points made in the article I consider features of PHP and are not detrimental.
If you read that part, it certainly didn't inform what you wrote. You tapped out the same tired boilerplate argument as ever without actually saying why he was wrong to dismiss those arguments up front, or without even acknowledging that he did so. So your post was indistinguishable from what someone would say who hadn't read the article, and that's why I called you a jerkhole: I'm pointing out how you didn't add any signal to the conversation. If you'd been serious about adding signal instead of noise, you would have acknowledged that he anticipated your argument, and made a counterargument to his dismissal. You did not. You just said "no it's not, because I say so."
Secondly, I don't think PHP is a bad tool. You can accomplish tasks very quickly in PHP. It is certainly not the fastest language, of course, it's not compiled, but it has a lot of great features. A lot of the points made in the article I consider features of PHP and are not detrimental.