Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:106999
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <076701d56978$86020910$92061b30$@php.net> <CADyq6sK4HektgfDpCCFR3=bumyPaf9vn=-WdvaboHybBQKd53g@mail.gmail.com>
 <078e01d5697c$5512bc10$ff383430$@php.net> <CAKws9z1EBSqCFy2wD3cEV49KDSJOd6tT04PrCkxG8+3Hb6WpTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKw1EU3Qp6W7b19r4kMKPD1HntH+7NQSxSiDNcLXqPERMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLRWF9jnS-Zs+uRFNN1pgRSvHFpW-FChgNq9Rk282AFFGA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKxUyeWWZY5OyDLtAYiDUYLkwyMjuc_Wq2Y++3C9CP6G1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKuGYLSub6oC=weSbjaPowhKtc3EimmFL6Tm+=D7wm7GeRLP=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPKYkKzCSy0BogG1v=vHPrwSNxroPgMSisEWxRgxdpR7X8CNSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAwbVucP-8PkM11OcPpqcyrbit8qQVyZ8cjF9oC23M_FHch=0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAwbVucP-8PkM11OcPpqcyrbit8qQVyZ8cjF9oC23M_FHch=0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:11:55 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPKYkKyz06_1Pfu8TChXEmP68UK8OLkdA_OKmYvshV1cM1BSeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com>, Scott Arciszewski <scott@paragonie.com>, 
	Zeev Suraski <zeev@php.net>, Marco Pivetta <ocramius@gmail.com>, 
	PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005bcd2a05925f13a3"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Changing fundamental language behaviors
From: chasepeeler@gmail.com (Chase Peeler)

--0000000000005bcd2a05925f13a3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:58 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:54 PM Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:33 PM Matthew Brown <matthewmatthew@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > What if Java suddenly said that all properties are suddenly private, and
>> >> can only be accessed through getter/setter methods?
>> >>
>> >
>> > If Java announced that the next major version was to make the change
>> after
>> > 95% of userland developers favoured it and over 2/3rds of their
>> internals
>> > team did, I'd think "huh ok I guess they have good reasons".
>> >
>> >
>> I call shenanigans on that 95% number. Can you please back that up?
>> Personally, I don't think it's even possible to gauge userland
>> support because the vast majority of userland developers aren't involved
>> in
>> the community at all. Those people don't even know this is being
>> discussed,
>> and probably won't until they start looking to upgrade to PHP 8.
>>
>> I'm sure you need to read the message properly before replying, he ain't
> talking about PHP there...
>
> Even 95% can be called anything(of users who are involved in the
> community, who knows, who are actual users, etc)
>
>>
>>
No, I think you misunderstood. I said "What if Java did XYZ" - The reply
was "If 95% of userland Java developers supported such a change..." That
implies that 95% of userland PHP developers support the changes in the RFC.

It wouldn't make sense to say "Well, if 95% of Java userland developers
supported the change, then it would make sense, just like we should pass
this RFC that 45% of PHP userland developers support"


> > For 20 years people have developed code based on that feature. It was
>> >> never considered an error, and often not even considered bad practice
>> >
>> >
>> > You seem to be arguing against *ever* changing something that a majority
>> > once thought was good, and fundamental to a given system. Lots of things
>> > fall into that category - restricting voting to men, segregation, etc.
>> >
>> >>
>>
>> --
>> Chase Peeler
>> chasepeeler@gmail.com
>>
>

-- 
Chase Peeler
chasepeeler@gmail.com

--0000000000005bcd2a05925f13a3--