Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123616
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Message-ID: <c2472dca-a297-4f14-bf53-b0ab9a67d3c7@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 16:58:55 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <0cf69a14-f1b5-4077-9d91-d7b579485eec@scriptfusion.com>
 <936e1aa3-48cc-4552-9f68-676ebcdeb596@rwec.co.uk>
 <1fc2f2d0-718f-45ec-8968-b66a1bde686e@scriptfusion.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <1fc2f2d0-718f-45ec-8968-b66a1bde686e@scriptfusion.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

On 15/06/2024 15:40, Bilge wrote:
> That's all quite interesting, but I didn't get a good sense of why the 
> idea was rejected


I haven't re-read the threads in full, so this is mostly from old 
memories. And please note I am not saying which of these views I agree 
with, just attempting to summarise them.

Common arguments against:

- Static properties are a form of global state, and that's something 
widely advised against
- Static classes without any properties would be the same as putting 
functions and constants in a namespace, which we can already do

Counter-arguments to the above:

- People do it in practice anyway, so why not have a more standard way 
of writing it
- Functions can't be autoloaded, but static classes can (unfortunately 
this is a hard problem, at least in part due to the design decision 15 
years ago where unqualified names fall back to the global namespace)


> rather than fall back on the opinions of many who are mostly absent 
> among those polled nine years ago, I'd rather get a sense of the 
> current sentiment of those present today.


This line of thinking always makes me uneasy. It lends undue weight to 
*who* made decisions, and not enough to *why*.

Inevitably, personal opinions do have an impact on decisions, but we 
should always be aiming to weigh the arguments for and against. In a 
way, it's like the jury in a court: the system works on the assumption 
that any group of voters would reach the same verdict.

However long ago the discussion started, we shouldn't have to go over 
the same ground again and again. We should look back at what has already 
been raised, and think about what's changed, or what additional points 
weren't considered.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]