Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106472
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJHtznz+vMtytUxnf73L474TcDUqsZpTHLTnhHL4E53CCQdibA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c-5CeZfyo2zBeoM63NDK-j2h6WTjvdT-yiKy040wVUm-w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJHtznzFSP4u7HggZPmyi27ejUie6x+kUytvTCd+WTpsKwFwag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJHtznzFSP4u7HggZPmyi27ejUie6x+kUytvTCd+WTpsKwFwag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 09:22:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c8Ws-Ap2Ztw87gBS3bn_dKq+c+eNtAL90SCgqWhwsJCwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>
Cc: Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c03aa058faa0979"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy
From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov)

--0000000000000c03aa058faa0979
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:25 PM Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 12:02 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is basically what I have been advocating for a while now already,
>> somewhat hidden between all the other noise of the "namespace-scoped
>> declares" thread. The model I would like to follow are Rust editions (
>> https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/editions/index.html). In PHP
>> right now, the way to do this technically would be based on a
>> declare(edition=2020) in every file. I was hoping to make this a
>> per-package declaration instead, but haven't found the perfect way to do
>> this right now.
>>
>
> I think it's similar, but not quite the same, at least as far as what I
> understood from what you were saying on that thread (I just reread it).
> First, I think it's important we don't only focus on what we're going to
> change - but also on what we're going to keep.  The motivation should not
> be slow eventual migration from one codebase to another.  We would have
> two, long-term supported codebases - a lot closer to C and C++ than to
> different editions of a single language.  The distance between them would
> be quite substantial from the get-go - and will likely grow farther as time
> goes by, similarly to the situation with C and C++.
>

I think this part is unrealistic from a simple manpower perspective. We
have something like ~2 full time developers working on PHP. Even if you can
rally some additional interest around this idea, I don't think we have the
resources to create a *substantially* different language in any reasonable
amount of time. Doing feature additions and changes to PHP is Hard. Even
simple changes require a fair bit of design and engineering effort to
integrate with the large complexity of the existing language. This would
not change for a hypothetical P++, because we still need to interoperate
with PHP.

Even if I agreed with the idea (which I'm pretty skeptical about in this
particular form), I really don't think we have the resources to do
something like this.

Nikita



> Also - I think that we should do our very best to get this "P++" right the
> first time, as opposed to iterate on it and release editions that provide a
> steady stream of change and breakage.  Of course - we can add new features
> and evolve existing ones - but this should be a lot more similar to the
> mini versions / feature releases we currently have.
>
> It's certainly similar in concept, but not quite the same.
>
> Zeev
>
>
>

--0000000000000c03aa058faa0979--