Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123623
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 23:00:39 -0300
Message-ID: <10F3E8CB-8569-4F22-9ACD-C4196CF5AB57@gmail.com>
References: <4a298266-d29c-44e8-abea-849fd3e23721@rwec.co.uk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
In-Reply-To: <4a298266-d29c-44e8-abea-849fd3e23721@rwec.co.uk>
To: "Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]" <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk>
From: deleugyn@gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Marco_Aur=C3=A9lio_Deleu?=)



> On 15 Jun 2024, at 14:11, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk> wro=
te:
>=20
> I fundamentally disagree with this assertion.
>=20
> If somebody makes a valid point, it doesn't automatically become invalid b=
ecause time has passed, or because nobody happens to repeat it in a later e-=
mail thread.
>=20
> If I copy and paste the content of each e-mail from the previous thread, d=
oes that make them "carry weight" again? What if I contact the authors of ea=
ch, and ask them to do so? Is that a good use of anyone's time, when we can j=
ust read the archives?
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> I think enough time has passed that gauging the sentiment of today is val=
id and worthwhile, especially if it has shifted (and we cannot know without a=
sking).
>=20
>=20
> I don't think "sentiment" is something we should place value on. As I said=
 in my last e-mail, we should be weighing the merit of the arguments for and=
 against, not the people who are making them.
>=20
> I don't see value in repeating the same arguments every X months or years,=
 like appointing a different jury to try the same case.
>=20
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> --
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]

If you appoint a different jury to try a 20 year old case, the decision of t=
he previous jury doesn't have any more weight than any other evidence on its=
 own. That's because society changes, law changes and people change. A 10 ye=
ar old discussion in the world of technology has little value to add and a l=
ot of harm to cause.=20

You may have core developers that voted no due to maintenance burden, but if=
 said maintainer is no longer active and new maintainers don't mind it, it's=
 a moot argument because people changed.

You may have no votes casted because at the time PHP technical debt couldn't=
 cope with such a change, which maybe isn't relevant anymore because the pro=
ject evolved.

You may have community leaders voting no because they inherently disagree wi=
th the concept but if they have moved on to other endeavors and current PHP c=
ommunity members like the concept, then society changes play a vital role in=
 a different outcome.

Ultimately I can agree with you that there is no point in rehashing the same=
 discussion under the same circumstances. But the last 10 years has complete=
ly changed the development world enough that anything that old is worth reha=
shing and I would even add that going through the archives is a double-edge s=
word because you can either come out of it with a stronger argument for why t=
he RFC is good now or you can come out of it overwhelmed with negativity and=
 a polluted opinion on the type of barriers that you may think that exists b=
ut that might be long gone=20=