Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106621
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908141608160.29731@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CAJHtznzSk57RAdEEEq_LnHspD+O5KApqANi5=YdMh2jURygr2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAfnsFVdCeTnsmU3ka=4awGGYMv_Xk-Jt0Jfrh8Zx+TmzUsRAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEm8qBSaogUyPLGHQ_EcyC0FErOUn7vxdnSda4oP=OjjKUYYbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOpQSz_65zOTJD0MiNNLP0sa0bLrTjxXg8mcG4Qk_rCr-mWPg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSz_65zOTJD0MiNNLP0sa0bLrTjxXg8mcG4Qk_rCr-mWPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:06:14 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEm8qBRePaQKwPXLVNi-ksX+LPLexjkN-d9PGTBpACORStKutA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Kokot <peterkokot@gmail.com>, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>, 
	PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b569f00590278aac"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Vote: Straw poll for P++ feasibility
From: hisamsonolu@gmail.com (Olumide Samson)

--000000000000b569f00590278aac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Power of democracy, maturity and love(for this same project PHP), I guess.

If this same love and energy could be put in place to know the directions
and future PHP hold(like are we moving forward or not), that will seriously
be a game changer.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 2:00 PM Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 3:20 AM Olumide Samson <hisamsonolu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019, 10:52 AM Peter Kokot <peterkokot@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 at 22:41, Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:14 PM Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Current vote is 39 - 0 in favor of rejection.  Who would've guessed this
> discussion would wind up being an exercise in unity lol....
>
>

--000000000000b569f00590278aac--