Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106528
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJHtznw0eKbBNJo9TnDwZvvbMMFt5mCo=+SpKLw0zYzq9tKWZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5d4e9057.1c69fb81.bdf14.8d8fSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <CACXBjuhfzX8vDXoJx2Q7EKQUu-2io=7+DyhCpWupt_8r15ijTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACXBjuhfzX8vDXoJx2Q7EKQUu-2io=7+DyhCpWupt_8r15ijTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 11:20:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFp73Xua7kmd4NKOpK_hyiNRDxcf7Xg_3Q+WRQtO4muaWHiypA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: P++: FAQ
From: guilhermeblanco@gmail.com ("guilhermeblanco@gmail.com")

Hi all,

I tried as much as I could to stay away from this discussion. My
personal take is that breaking the language in two is a *really bad
idea* (shouldn't I have put caps here instead?).
Anyway, people are commenting a lot on features that adds a feature to
the language, but nothing was being spoken about scenarios where
severe internals changes would be required. Zeev, sorry for taking you
as the guinea pig here, but since you were the one that started this
whole thread, I think it's fair to ask you directly.

1- How would you envision a shared runtime between PHP and P++, in the
case that this new evolved solution decides to support objects as keys
in array structure? This fundamentally changes internals, and a
drastic change to both runtime of PHP and P++ would be required.

2- How would you envision injecting an actual namespace structure,
allowing scoping support for namespaces? FYI, this is what blocked me
to finish class visibility in https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/947
It'd require drastic changes in both PHP runtime and P++ too.

I have added 2 small samples (feel free to ask me if you need a few
more) where in order to add a feature in P++, changes to the way PHP
operated would have to change too.

The only I see this to operate is either P++ re-implementing the same
PHP structures in order to evolve, leading to a full fork becoming
more attractive, or compromises in P++ (like unable to support a given
feature) because PHP would make it set back.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Cheers,

On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:05 AM Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 5:37 AM Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>
> > As the person who initially proposed and implemented strict_types, I
> > think this is heading in the wrong direction. Perhaps that directive was
> > a mistake, if it will lead to so many attempts inspired by it to
> > fragment the language, including this one. Personally, I don't actually
> > want a language like C++ or Java. PHP's flexibility is great, and I
> > think splitting the language means going in a direction where you are
> > forced to have everything be strict or nothing be. PHP++ sounds like
> > Hack, but in mainline. I think it'll end up a mess in the long term.
> >
>
> Yes, I would suspect it would get a bit weird having a AnythingGoes
> vs. NothingGoes barrier in the code like that. Forcing a balance, even
> if sometimes the arguments get rather heated (and they were just as
> heated, if not more so 20+ years ago), keeps everyone on the same
> page and working on the same code-base without the us vs. them
> situation that is bound to creep in.
>
> -Rasmus



-- 
Guilherme Blanco
SVP Technology at Statflo Inc.
Mobile: +1 647 232 5599