That was an interesting read. The most interesting part is how he overlooked everything that could be detrimental to his thesis statement.
For Example:
http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2002/papers/html/php/#section_2
What if the team used oop methodologies and created objects that encompassed all of the business logic and then created php documents that used those objects. If this is done correctly you are using php as your template language and your backend language thereby making positions within the team more interchangable and increasing overall productivity by having a team that can all help one another on some level. He never even mentions that.
He then spends half the article illustrating why non-typed or loosely-typed languages are satan spawn capable of nothing but evil. This is a religious war that has been on going in the community for many decades. It boils down to a simple answer, if you as a programmer want the freedom of loose-typing you as the programmer must safe-guard against loose-typing mistakes. It doesn't make a language better or worse as long as the functionality to force-typing when necesary is there and it is in php.
Then he covers the scoping issues. Every language has them, they are design decisions or the language and you can't please everyone.
He seems to forget that PHP is a special purpose language and not a general application language. It is designed for web-sites and only for web-sites. Sure, you can do other things with it but it is not ment for that.
He also spends a lot of words covering known security issues with the language. I tell you what, show me a language that intrinsicly prevents all security flaws and I'll use it exclusively for everything and hang stupid signs on everyone who doesn't.
Anyway enough of my rant.