Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121738
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <79d675e3-95b4-40bb-baf4-3e1c998f5390@online-presence.ca> <CAPTD5yH9Wk=ADvCRf4K3SVNm+hfyarHr8_4hQAMbt-zDH4zxkA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPTD5yH9Wk=ADvCRf4K3SVNm+hfyarHr8_4hQAMbt-zDH4zxkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 22:21:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGBsUreqkyoohwL0B7o8WFQLLcekMryDmDRQ1ksoF2FZCt9WOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Cc: Lanre Waju <lanre@online-presence.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000724a5e060a9c13f1"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal - static modifier for classes
From: tekiela246@gmail.com (Kamil Tekiela)

--000000000000724a5e060a9c13f1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

A class with a private constructor can still be instantiated. A class that
cannot be instantiated is pretty much useless. A static class would be just
a collection of functions. And I know that many developers write such
classes but it doesn't mean the language should encourage it. After all, if
someone wants to create such a "collection of functions" they can already
do that and they don't need a static class.

By definition a class is a template for creation of objects. Everything in
PHP OOP is designed with this in mind.  Adding static classes would be a
severe complication in the language syntax that goes against the OOP
principles. That's like saying that some people use a saw to hammer in
nails and we should designs saws that make it easier.

There are so many unanswered questions in this proposals without even
considering things that might be implemented in the future. Such an
addition would be a major change that could have unforseen results.

And by the way, you are not going to win anyone's approval by being rude
and condescending.

--000000000000724a5e060a9c13f1--