Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:121743
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\))
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 18:48:30 -0500
References: <79d675e3-95b4-40bb-baf4-3e1c998f5390@online-presence.ca>
 <CAPTD5yH9Wk=ADvCRf4K3SVNm+hfyarHr8_4hQAMbt-zDH4zxkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGBsUreqkyoohwL0B7o8WFQLLcekMryDmDRQ1ksoF2FZCt9WOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAGBsUreqkyoohwL0B7o8WFQLLcekMryDmDRQ1ksoF2FZCt9WOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <34979AED-893F-45DD-B641-A9F4F39B2928@newclarity.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC Proposal - static modifier for classes
From: mike@newclarity.net (Mike Schinkel)

Wow.=20

This thread has gone from zero-to-toxic in no time flat, and with some =
participants being borderline condescending.  It is almost as if some =
folk are still in kindergarten.

Maybe try a different approach, from both sides of this debate?

For the advocates, how about explaining the use-cases for static =
classes, why you want or need to use them instead of the proposed =
alternatives, and especially pointing out any ways in which the proposed =
alternatives do not address the same issues and/or provide equivalent =
functionality as static classes would?

And for the status-quoians, while I know you feel namespaces address the =
reasons you believe people want static classes, you feel it is bad =
practice to use static classes for those reasons, and you lament that =
programmers still use static classes instead of namespaces, maybe =
consider exploring *why* developers still use static classes instead of =
namespaces?  And please, consider if there is a better way to answer =
that question rather than falling back on the canard that those =
programmers either don't know any better, or are actively choosing to =
cause harm to all the PHP community and all its collective code across =
the land.

Maybe there are very good reasons developers actively prefer to use =
static classes instead of namespaces? And if you actively try to =
discover those reasons, maybe you can consider discussing how to address =
them rather than just dismissing the desire to use them as developers =
choosing to use "anti-patterns?"=20

Are there missing features the language offers users of static classes =
that it does not offer namespaces?  Are static classes more ergonomic to =
use than namespaces?  Or are there other reasons to use static classes =
over namespaces?  (Note for this email I am not taking a position pro or =
con, I just posing the question.)

If collectively you discover there are gaps between namespaces and =
static classes, maybe the solution is to fill those gaps instead?  Maybe =
that means improving namespaces, maybe that means adding static classes, =
or maybe it means some unmentioned 3rd option? Either way such an =
approach is likely going to be more productive than a =
quasi-religious/political rally with extremists on both sides protesting =
the other.

That is, unless those of you participating really prefer to have =
divisive debates that result in no positive outcomes, in which case, =
knock yourselves out. =F0=9F=A4=B7=E2=80=8D=E2=99=82=EF=B8=8F

-Mike