Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:108237
Message-ID: <FC578397-3F03-4E4C-B531-FCFE9CC55447@newclarity.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_87F200EF-48D2-4E0C-8BD9-239B768CD64A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:12:37 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5d1eaf45-d888-3fe6-7c40-02b0c8c81b61@gmail.com>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
References: <CAKtGGAsh-38W1UjgDaoQFzhKNOqTy3QGV8fE1-6-PPob2zw6Vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c8yAqHeLRzeX0sYxnQ30JAtg=Ubp7sDyonCkS5V7goN5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <5DC86728-1BBF-4DCA-8A6B-9B0B190DB99D@newclarity.net>
 <CACXBjuhpy3b0fpKHqtDbWDiwVSruRa_NgNUaLOQrduKY-WAx3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3091DC6D-E03B-4AF5-8DC6-F3B2772956BD@newclarity.net>
 <5d1eaf45-d888-3fe6-7c40-02b0c8c81b61@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Typed array properties V2
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

--Apple-Mail=_87F200EF-48D2-4E0C-8BD9-239B768CD64A
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8

> On Jan 24, 2020, at 3:47 PM, Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> I imagine the reason static analysers are generally run as a separate =
step rather than just before execution is because then you _really_ =
don't care about performance, and it's more convenient to get the =
results on demand, rather than them appearing in your server logs.

Let me try to make this rhetorical point in a different way.

One of the main strengths of PHP =E2=80=94 and IMO one of the reasons =
for its incredibly marketshare =E2=80=94 is the ease with which PHP code =
can be written, tested, and deployed. And that ease translated to =
ubiquity. =20

Adding a recommended build step to that in order to gain correctness =
weakens that value proposition and threatens future ubiquity as other =
language improve.=20

Said another way, if someone is evaluating which language to use =E2=80=94=
 if they have to have a build step anyway =E2=80=94 they might just =
avoid PHP and choose a truly compiled language that by nature is =
significantly more performant. =20

Or they might look for a language that is designed to provide static =
analysis without requiring a build step. Not sure if such as language =
exists, but if not there is certainly a compelling opportunity to create =
one. Or this is an opportunity that PHP could seize for itself.

So saying "use a static analyzer" is IMO just pointing out an overall =
weakness that PHP can't automatically do static analysis on its own.

-Mike

P.S. I am not calling for any new feature in this message, just wanting =
to call attention to the fact that PHP does not operate in a vacuum and =
that those who care about PHP's future should remember to consider that =
when discussing improvements other languages might have or might be =
adding.=20





--Apple-Mail=_87F200EF-48D2-4E0C-8BD9-239B768CD64A--