So the rant on PHP has a similar tenor to the ones about Node.js - which already starts us off on the wrong foot. However, as I read through the whole thing, I find that I can't disagree with any one particular point. Every single one seems at least conditionally valid, and at least none of them seem deliberate designed to be maliciously false. So, points to you sir and/or m'am on your post. My rebuttal follows.
I've been using PHP for somewhere around 10 or 15 years or so, and I haven't run into even half of those various weird edge-cases. I'm not saying they don't exist. They seem like they do. But I'm saying you don't run into them so often.
However, I do feel that the long, exhaustive list of 'things that are wrong with PHP' sort-of misses the point. Yes, the language has weird bugaboos about it. All languages do. No, none of them are fatal. The language is easy to pick up and be productive in. It's easy to have a mostly-static site with the odd dynamic page here and there. Deployment is a breeze. FTP up your new files and you're done. You don't even have to think about it. Sites run fast. Development is easy. The documentation is excellent. I haven't seen any other environment that comes remotely close in that regard. Just about any thing you would want to be able to do, there is a function for. It exists to make dynamic web pages, so it fits that well.
The article also rather quickly breezes over an important point. Facebook uses PHP. Why is that? The article states that it's fine for FB because they're huge and can 'engineer around' the various weaknesses of the language. That certainly begs the question as to why they would bother. Is it just legacy? Are they just dumb? I have a hard time believing any of those possibilities.
Mass hosting for websites really only works for PHP. The security gets a little dodgy, but it basically kinda works. Try that with any other webdev environment and you wont get nearly the server-density that you do in PHP. That is pretty hard to beat.
Server-side includes. Anyone remember these? This is really what PHP has supplanted. For that kind of stuff, it's great.
Or for a one-page site. Or a static site that has one dynamic page that does something - you cannot beat PHP.
Plenty of people use it with frameworks for complex sites. If I had a really super complex site to do, I honestly don't know whether or not I'd do it in PHP. But if I did decide to do it there, I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it.
Edit, reload, etc. You can edit a PHP page on a server, hit reload, and it works. No magic. Or if there is magic in that, it's so magical that you don't need to ever know how it works. This is quite pleasant. No dicking around with production versus development or HUP signals or restart.txt files or any of that shit. On development or production; edit your file, reload. Boom.
Server infrastructure - since PHP is most often served up via Apache, you don't have to throw some kind of reverse proxy in front of it or anything. If you have static assets, they will be quickly served up via Apache's static web-page serving. All for free in the default set-up for PHP.
Performance. PHP is fast. Even without an accelerator. I've built many, many PHP apps, and I've never needed to use one - the database always ends up being the bottleneck, never the web front-end. It will likely outperform most other web environments with no tuning. I *have* had to tweak the maximum number of http processes in Apache on a very high-traffic site, and I've also messed with the maximum PHP memory to permit per-process, but (off the top of my head) those are the only two knobs I've had to twiddle. And I've only had to do that on sites with the highest-of-traffic running on the crappiest-of-server environments.
So if you want to live in your tiny ivory tower and yammer on endlessly on pedantic points about object hierarchies and namespace pollution and function-name consistency, feel free. However, those of us who are jamming out PHP sites will not be doing that - because we will have already finished the project we've worked on and moved on to the next one.