Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:101070 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 59795 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2017 11:10:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Nov 2017 11:10:02 -0000 X-Host-Fingerprint: 62.31.75.76 76.75-31-62.static.virginmediabusiness.co.uk Received: from [62.31.75.76] ([62.31.75.76:18048] helo=localhost.localdomain) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E3/7A-09857-903400A5 for ; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 06:10:01 -0500 Message-ID: To: internals@lists.php.net References: <64.21.07742.EF158F95@pb1.pair.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> <6A.75.09857.9F6EEF95@pb1.pair.com> <55fb932f-7f61-33eb-1fd9-aa425bc6ff27@rhsoft.net> In-Reply-To: <55fb932f-7f61-33eb-1fd9-aa425bc6ff27@rhsoft.net> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:09:58 -0000 Lines: 7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3564.1216 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3564.1216 X-Posted-By: 62.31.75.76 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFC - Array Of for PHP 7 From: TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston") wrote in message news:55fb932f-7f61-33eb-1fd9-aa425bc6ff27@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 Everybody knows that carrying around code which is either rarely used or not used at all is an overhead. That's what the 80-20 rule demonstrates. Adding something to the language core for something which can already be done easily is userland code, but with slightly fewer keystrokes, does not provide any benefits for the majority of developers who have already written those few lines of code. This is a classic example of pandering to the whims of a tiny minority to the detriment of the majority. >>>> 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? 64bit builds of PHP 5 for Windows were all marked as experimental, therefore not guaranteed to be as reliable as the 32bit versions. The "experimental" tag was only removed for PHP 7. >>>> 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 Everybody knows that carrying around code which is either rarely used or not used at all is an overhead. That's what the 80-20 rule demonstrates. -- Tony Marston