Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106483
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
	s=turbo-smtp; d=php.net;
	h=Received:Received:X-TurboSMTP-Tracking:X-Gm-Message-State:X-Google-Smtp-Source:X-Received:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:X-Gmail-Original-Message-Id:Message-ID:Subject:To:Cc:Content-Type;
	b=ZmmyWK0qo7CIii1MgT3DFyGYfP3QI1zCltJj3rUU6FaSngSBARcOVrCJX1QDBg
	xzHT71eu7uFU5KdwDdZjgIQeyj8VcNlUK2cJfo4XBP4Q016WcdNNgqYybCw+fJ7I
	55PWB8ipEY+IzpWur8fnBRoQP1hUi0/snuJnWN1Ky89LQ=;
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> <CAF+90c8Ws-Ap2Ztw87gBS3bn_dKq+c+eNtAL90SCgqWhwsJCwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOpQSyWcge-6D9bu+bsJx=JdJ45MJd4KiqAuXzjQhTpWP4q0Q@mail.gmail.com> <8a95f23e-4145-46ee-ba49-6c24c32c8243@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <8a95f23e-4145-46ee-ba49-6c24c32c8243@Spark>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 15:07:43 +0300
Message-ID: <CAJHtznzTBTR5TJZnBY4F1Cj0RbSXYP-+xhdhPzf3PtKxzL_kAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergey Panteleev <sergey@s-panteleev.ru>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>,  Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000036ee9b058fae06cc"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Bringing Peace to the Galaxy
From: zeev@php.net (Zeev Suraski)

--00000000000036ee9b058fae06cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sergey Panteleev <sergey@s-panteleev.ru>
wrote:

> As I understand, in P++ it was planned to drop the legacy code,


Correct.


> add new functionality


Correct.

> and painlessly implement BC.
>

Probably correct - but to phrase it more accurately - when we introduce P++
- we won't be bound by the same level of BC that we're bound by today -
simply because migration would be opt in.


> Who wants =E2=80=93 migrates the PHP project in P++, who doesn't =E2=80=
=93 continues to
> use PHP.
>

Correct.

Going forward, things begin to be less correct.  P++ isn't "the future of
PHP".  It's something different, a sister language - that has a different
philosophy.  It's strongly typed, and has capabilities that many of the
folks who want a more advanced/complex language appreciate.

New projects, for example, will use P++ already.
>

Some will, some won't.  There'll be plenty of new projects who will be
written in PHP.  And probably, plenty of new projects written in P++.

Well, how is this different from the new version of PHP (e.g. PHP 9)?
>

It's very, very different.

With this approach, even down the line in 2029, PHP remains PHP.  None of
us has a crystal ball to predict the future, but my guess is that WordPress
will stick with PHP, and not move to P++.  Based on feedback - Laravel (the
most popular PHP framework) - will stick with PHP, and most probably many
if not most of the new Laravel-based projects will do the same.

If we stick with the current way of doing things, the tension between the
strict camp and the dynamic camp (to oversimplify the distinction between
them) are going to stay constant or get worse - essentially as many in the
strict camp views the dynamic nature of PHP as 'legacy' (you're kind of
alluding to that in your question).  As much as it doesn't appear to be
reflected on internals@ - there are TONS of people out there that like
PHP's dynamic nature, and have absolutely no wish to become more and more
strict as time passes by.

Who wants =E2=80=93 adapts his code for PHP 8/9 with all its BCs, who doesn=
't =E2=80=93
> continued to use PHP 7/8.
>

No, that's not an option for a variety of reasons - for starters, it means
that those who are unhappy with the direction the language is going
towards, are essentially forced to leave it sooner or later - as they'd get
no security updates, no performance improvements, no bugfixes, no new
extensions, etc.  Also, consider it a given that PHP has to stay a dynamic
language.  Making it exclusively strict simply isn't an option.
Introducing strict while keeping the dynamic ones is an option - but it's a
complicated one, and also entails inherent tensions - especially because
many in the strict camp view this as a transition, and not an addition.
The separation into two 'dialects' can provide a clean way for solving this
long term.

Because this discussion flows smoothly from a neighboring branch, let me
> remind you that a few percentages of users who continue to use short tags
> were discussed there.
>

I don't think that's relevant, but regardless - we have no data about how
many people use short tags.  1% wasn't an estimate, it was just an
illustration that even if it's 1% - it's a huge number of people.  My
guesstimate is that it's a lot more than 1%.


> Perhaps the same percentage of users will remain in PHP instead of the
> discussed P++.
>

No, not at all.  There are a lot more folks who prefer the dynamic nature
of PHP than folks who care about short tags.  WordPress developers, Laravel
developers - two of the biggest ecosystems in PHP (if not the biggest ones)
- seem to generally prefer that.  That in itself can easily be several tens
of percents of the userbase.


> Will the development of a new language be justified due to the few
> percentages of users?
>

The ones who want to develop a new language aren't the ones in the dynamic
camp.  They're the ones in the strict camp.
My proposal allows them to do exactly that, while living in peace with the
dynamic camp.

Zeev

--00000000000036ee9b058fae06cc--