Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118206
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH19jWhvuLBT3kZ-u1SPEgwEec=JfALuaiy+Lma9F8WAbqANWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyq6s+Nf7GOyj1gOjt4o5a80B7LcP73Tq3Y3aTG_KGLx0q5vA@mail.gmail.com> <9d4e1c05-651f-41d5-8336-1291f94e58b0@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9d4e1c05-651f-41d5-8336-1291f94e58b0@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2022 16:23:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6sJ_G4Hzx7nxHmxujWXhoD24dc1HUarQjnR9kJmyU04WSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007aa32505e323b871"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Constants in traits
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--0000000000007aa32505e323b871
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 at 16:17, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 6, 2022, at 4:45 AM, Marco Pivetta wrote:
> > Hey Shinji,
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 23:39, shinji igarashi <sji@sj-i.dev> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello internals,
> >>
> >> I've started the vote for the Constants in Traits RFC:
> >> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/constants_in_traits
> >>
> >> The vote will end on 19. July 2022.
> >>
> >
> > I voted "NO" on this.
> >
> > Reasoning:
> >
> >  * traits are pretty much unnecessary in the language. Since their
> > introduction in PHP 5.4 their usage went from "let's try this out" to
> "how
> > do I burn this with fire?". I don't want traits to expand in scope: they
> > already do enough damage with their built-in accidental complexity.
>
> Point of order: This is a subjective position not universally held.
> Traits are certainly misusable, but so is literally everything.  If used
> judiciously, I have found them useful.  Certainly they are better than
> abstract classes in many cases.
>
> You may not like them, but that doesn't make them intrinsically harmful to
> the language by their existence.  They are not.
>

Certainly, but unnecessary features are bloat, and bloat is a clear
negative.
A feature's value must outweigh its carried maintenance and cognitive
effort in order to justify its existence.

As someone who worked a lot with analyzing traits (especially in reflection
context), traits don't respect that requirement, **BY FAR**.

Also, the idea of the RFC process here is that voters bring in their own
requirements: my requirement is as subjective as yours.

Greets,

Marco Pivetta

https://twitter.com/Ocramius

https://ocramius.github.io/

--0000000000007aa32505e323b871--