Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106619 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 11856 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2019 12:51:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-ot1-f44.google.com) (209.85.210.44) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 15 Aug 2019 12:51:20 -0000 Received: by mail-ot1-f44.google.com with SMTP id e12so4714555otp.10 for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:20:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xsr7yrD9OcogOQYPu0QfnZI5ZkVGxPpzGI8xHiwrdRI=; b=YvOcxWHum4PmoQsJbH8XmCWgXP4pfg/6AoC3LoP7MXR5EC0LhjsG153Arug+XYo73D P1MBjkb+6AiLctqQtXY0WOUCm15f6SRG9Xk/q83ZGGhye7koWPZOwmKPzF42u4tqKiCm KWQlQjt8cabaPQP68FIpH6rfdHkr7AL+MHG4y2g/mwutJmPNCXOkc1QuyRIBlN0Ok0rY xuIzcrN6qfJE0QYgIVWTUqLq2mEpn9Ibbmy284V30gf535oHvURBkE1XZUG3UCbUTBjl sNfTObsV9Mw3bJkXjM4Y7ingr/Lia5dUzA61h0IHkH+8v0i+e8ak2yRNyPg4xxIJNclN DF7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xsr7yrD9OcogOQYPu0QfnZI5ZkVGxPpzGI8xHiwrdRI=; b=QJzvF3htky4g6IOKhoNJvWt0GEzBJZqtxXowPICMCWfUyZox4aKd4Rg/AGZZyOuT3o 63xHkw6LX03ELySGF05SKIvBRsU4RyU+7GzXCgnwTskO/9z6hzwz1k/HvYv/ZXwUaHRs DytxLkM4Bh5BpuArbBnCEvk498rMjm1/ZhV5JV9F2S6HLO58Udu8qerwejwt+fkVwdyW mBNPSBS/NYL3dJJ2cAVNBNDL3/qGeAha4So7gKE3P5u9xdNNwPzV8lHF3+0QjzXtSmVk fYw2Zy7Uw2jPHolSjL6p0LbpWLGXHEun0aFBox3jnvcTHff23AwhunPCO5FgOXWuWdbR VObw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW7MflQaKJYCRpdaKUhoM4f27pSJvZF97X4iS67RmDHzFZEDXfE p8xDwfckJgXjmPFvbhE6ieK/zLmNB5EHHQkPqQs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxtrVoetmgDs2RHM472DeGjTqZw6wNmIrmHo9pcwy1/EQws4dt4pUeGyTFcvGi8RXz+TjKHA+zbP6O08Kd07Uo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:130e:: with SMTP id p14mr828622otq.339.1565864412532; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:20:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 11:19:47 +0100 Message-ID: To: Peter Kokot Cc: Zeev Suraski , Derick Rethans , PHP Developers Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001355b40590253862" Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote: Straw poll for P++ feasibility From: hisamsonolu@gmail.com (Olumide Samson) --0000000000001355b40590253862 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 10:52 AM Peter Kokot wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 22:41, Zeev Suraski wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:14 PM Derick Rethans wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > In the last week(s) there has been a lot of chat about Zeev's P++ idea. > > > Before we end up spending this project's time and energy to explore > this > > > idea further, I thought it'd be wise to see if there is enough animo > for > > > this. Hence, I've created a document in the wiki as a poll: > > > > > > > All, > > > > Using a humoristic tone, I'm happy that finally internals@ is so > unified. > > I almost get the feeling that you may not like the idea... > > > > On a more serious note, I'll keep the feedback on the validity of this > vote > > in just about every aspect (process, jurisdiction, anything really) to > > myself, and say just two things: > > > > - The P++ idea makes absolutely no sense in vacuum. The reception around > > this idea implied a decision between 'one big happy family' and 'a > split'. > > Since at this stage these are the perceived choices - I'd vote against it > > too (which I just did, why not). However, I believe it's a false choice. > > > > - It will absolutely make sense to discuss it when it'll start becoming > > clearer to everyone that 'one big happy family' is really not an option. > > We'd be choosing how to soft split the family - granularly (2^n > dialects), > > into many editions (n dialects), or into two separate dialects with > clearer > > mandates (2 dialects). I get it that it's intangible for many of us > > (myself included, to a degree), which is why this idea is perceived as > the > > 'evil splitter' for everyone to unite and rally against. Maybe I'm > wrong, > > and the changes/features that I think are about to make it into PHP > aren't > > going to require any sort of split. If that's the case - it's indeed a > > horrible idea. We'd only be able to see that a but further down the > road. > > It's definitely too early to spend that level of energy on it at this > stage > > - but at the same time, it will definitely make sense to explore it if & > > when the reality I think we're going to be facing would begin to unfold. > > > > I will not be responding to any further emails on this thread; I'll > > happily reply to private messages though. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Zeev > > Hello @everyone, > > this then also means that PHP will now never be a consistent language > and short tags will be forever in so we will all be able to support > Chase's gigantic legacy project forever? > Solution would be if we can make this issue that was mentioned: > - elephpant vs elep++ant > > into a similar issue as is now: > - elephpant vs elephpantwithstricttypes > (non existent issue - all part of the one PHP itself) > Zeev(Or anyone with such energy) can take up the game with same energy he(Zeev) took the *elep++ant *up and I bet everyone (or the majority) would really love the newer idea(elephpant vs elephpantwithstricttypes) and probably take it up as a non issue coz it is all in the same part of the one PHP itself(which already have its niche and brand). And, IMHO the strict type or cleaner version of PHP would improve many sections of the language and even help with future implementations(maybe sooner we might even implement more evolved and consistent aliases of current C styled function naming) all of these and more in the same PHP we've known. Or perhaps, an idea is to take a break on new implementations and make some great changes which will pave way for great ideas and innovations. All of this are good ideas internals@ should be debating, I guess. --0000000000001355b40590253862--