Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101063
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CALTzvrKFLnCW4+D-FU4cp2rmOScF77vZFz4f1cuVP3VyMzkkeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <64.21.07742.EF158F95@pb1.pair.com>
 <CAJW__o3QJOe6G3ybmBcoCU=FCAdjZAcgbKTiJRBM3RS8Q0hBNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <71.50.09857.3BBEAF95@pb1.pair.com>
 <6643d10b-8703-693c-15c2-da338022ef41@rhsoft.net>
 <18.19.09857.3E54CF95@pb1.pair.com>
 <941fd347-4a17-78b6-1bd7-4a5519aa722b@rhsoft.net>
 <67.8E.09857.7D58DF95@pb1.pair.com>
 <d70cc49d-c397-3f09-d08d-b79b31014271@rhsoft.net>
 <6A.75.09857.9F6EEF95@pb1.pair.com>
Message-ID: <55fb932f-7f61-33eb-1fd9-aa425bc6ff27@rhsoft.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 13:25:43 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6A.75.09857.9F6EEF95@pb1.pair.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: de-CH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC - Array Of for PHP 7
From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net")



Am 05.11.2017 um 11:24 schrieb Tony Marston:
> wrote in message news:d70cc49d-c397-3f09-d08d-b79b31014271@rhsoft.net...
>> it depends on the implementation and just beause you say so does not 
>> prove anything and even if you need to measure, optimize and make 
>> decisions based on technical facts - what you do is "mimimi i say"
> 
> I have worked on software which provided lots of different options, 
> which means that you have to keep testing if an option is being used or 
> not. This is an overhead whether you like it or not.

maybe your implementation was bad

>>> There is a big difference between adding something to the language 
>>> core which everyone has to load into memory, and having something in 
>>> an extension which is entirely optional.
>>>
>>>> or why did 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 not speaking about 7.0/7.1 *all* 
>>>> have new features and where *faster* then the previous version - 
>>>> frankly you are raising alarm for no reason
> 
> Can you prove that each new version was faster? Where is your evidence?

everbody knows that and can benchmark it at any time, but if it makes 
you happy that others are doing your homework

https://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/493-php-performance-evolution.html

>>> PHP 7 is faster than PHP 5 for various reasons, such as it being 
>>> 64bit instead of 32bit
>>
>> WTF, only in your windows world which don't matter that much, 
>> everywhere else x86_64 is normal for many years and each software
> 
> Excuse me! Some of the major clients who use my ERP application only use 
> Windows servers, so your claim that Windows does matter is completely 
> bogus.

how does that change the fact that your claim "such as it being 64bit 
instead of 32bit" is nonsense when most of the benchamrks and production 
servers out there are running PHP on x86_64 with 86_64 builds for a 
decade now?

>>> and improvements made to the engine itself, such as the AST. I submit 
>>> that it would be smaller and faster if it did not have to carry 
>>> around so much dross. Adding something to the core language just to 
>>> save a few keystrokes for a small number of lazy developers falls 
>>> into the category of dross
>>
>> you ignored that practicaly *every* PHP version before PHP/ was faster 
>> *and* had new features compared to the previous one
> 
> Just think how much faster and easier to maintain it would be if all 
> this save-a-few-keystrokes dross had not been added in the first place.

again: unproven claim, but in your own world a hashtable probably is 
also not O(1) or you are just not capable to optimize software at all 
but then stop claim others aren't too