Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110019
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c8m-CB3ZxAHeoOJVxJGhysLfZqpz3mq475GPnMEDA6iqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+pfDfDey8hGT=zDD5hwyKjq3q6V8xPVyP03z=6MwGgdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <BYAPR05MB65351D7E676F6ABD5EBF3D99DEA70@BYAPR05MB6535.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <CADyq6sLgKy5xhh5f9ptV5wNEWQ7e5LwqjZc2_-8FoRtq=Yv6rA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c8MQgXwNGsx8zcgkYWBkmJEO7wCum-6+yyAYt=yC_+_-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c8MQgXwNGsx8zcgkYWBkmJEO7wCum-6+yyAYt=yC_+_-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 20:33:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6sKmcgk+DaBQQQVAO4Fv44ejsb+_9PLV0+kR6HLMjwQogw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>
Cc: Theodore Brown <theodorejb@outlook.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0edfb05a4eae308"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Named arguments
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--000000000000b0edfb05a4eae308
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 8:22 PM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:

> Builders and withers? Those are not, intrinsically, good code. They are
> workarounds for lack of good object initialization support. I should not
> have to implement a large amount of builder boilerplate to make the
> construction of simple objects safe and ergonomic. We're not talking about
> some kind of complex multi-stage construction logic here, but the
> construction of what essentially amounts to a value object.
>

They are not good code, but they are reasonable code, in which each call is
an atomic state creation/mutation.

Generally, named arguments really change what constitutes a good API and
> what doesn't. Things like boolean flags to functions are considered bad
> design *because* we do not have named arguments. If I pick out some random
> Python API, say subprocess.run()...
>

You got multiple APIs within a single massive signature: may as well start
counting the permutations of possible characters you pass to an endpoint,
and what you get in the end is `eval()` :-P


>    subprocess.run(args, *, stdin=None, input=None, stdout=None,
> stderr=None, capture_output=False, shell=False, cwd=None, timeout=None,
> check=False, encoding=None, errors=None, text=None, env=None,
> universal_newlines=None)
>
> ... and show that to a PHP developer, they're probably going to tell me
> that this is horrible API design. They would, of course, be wrong. It's
> reasonable API design, just in a language that supports named arguments.
>

There are so many ways in which the above fails in different ways (besed on
flags) that I can't even start to reason about the resulting chaos.
Would rather consume a dozen of differently named (curried) versions of
this.

Similar to the above: might as well uncurry all the defined API of a
program into a single `function (string, array $args)` (which is what the
PHP engine or CPUs doe at low-level, obviously).

--000000000000b0edfb05a4eae308--