Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:123626
Feedback-ID: ifab94697:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-515-g87b2bad5a-fm-20240604.001-g87b2bad5
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ed873e8a-51a6-4aed-9236-9e3db8a35090@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3595ABDE-3A86-42B5-91AB-98DA4639F08A@rwec.co.uk>
References: <4a298266-d29c-44e8-abea-849fd3e23721@rwec.co.uk>
 <10F3E8CB-8569-4F22-9ACD-C4196CF5AB57@gmail.com>
 <3595ABDE-3A86-42B5-91AB-98DA4639F08A@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 11:27:27 +0200
To: internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static class
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=256ddc9ab88049ccabb1cb710abd1354
From: rob@bottled.codes ("Rob Landers")

--256ddc9ab88049ccabb1cb710abd1354
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On Sun, Jun 16, 2024, at 10:33, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On 16 June 2024 03:00:39 BST, "Marco Aur=C3=A9lio Deleu" <deleugyn@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> >If you appoint a different jury to try a 20 year old case, the decisi=
on of the previous jury doesn't have any more weight than any other evid=
ence on its own.
>=20
> You missed the point of the analogy.  The point is that that would onl=
y happen if you have some specific reason why the case needs to be reope=
ned.=20
>=20
> I'm not saying nobody is allowed to talk about this. I'm just saying, =
let's start by looking at the old discussion, and discuss *specifically*=
 what might have changed, rather than waving our hands and saying "10 ye=
ars is a long time, so no opinion from that long ago can possibly be val=
id".
>=20
>=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 but if said maintainer is no longer active and new maintainers don't mi=
nd it, it's a moot argument because people changed.
>=20
> The maintenance burden argument is actually a good example of *not* be=
ing about individuals. The argument is not "I don't want to maintain it"=
, it's "we shouldn't burden future maintainers with this".
>=20
>=20
> >You may have no votes casted because at the time PHP technical debt c=
ouldn't cope with such a change, which maybe isn't relevant anymore beca=
use the project evolved.
>=20
> This, on the other hand, is a good example of one where we don't need =
to guess. Look at the archives - were people concerned about the impleme=
ntation? If so, pointing out that the implementation would now be simple=
r would absolutely be a reason to bring it back to discussion.
>=20
>=20
> >You may have community leaders voting no because they inherently disa=
gree with the concept but if they have moved on to other endeavors and c=
urrent PHP community members like the concept, then society changes play=
 a vital role in a different outcome.
>=20
> Again, let's stop talking in the abstract, and look at this specific c=
ase. Can you point to changes in the usage of PHP that make this feature=
 more likely to see wide use or acceptance? Do you think the community a=
t large, who we are trying to represent here, is more or less likely to =
write a purely static class in 2024 than in 2014?
>=20
>=20
> All I'm asking is that if we are going to revisit features we previous=
ly rejected, we start with "here's why I think the arguments for and aga=
inst this feature have changed", rather than "I don't like the old resul=
t, I demand a new vote".
>=20
> Regards,
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]
>=20

I don=E2=80=99t understand why we are comparing this to a jury and/or co=
urt case. In many countries, juries don=E2=80=99t even exist (such as th=
e one I currently reside in) so the only context is US TV shows for what=
 that even means. Secondly, RFC=E2=80=99s are not =E2=80=9Con trial=E2=80=
=9D and can be presented over and over again without much change. To say=
 =E2=80=9Cgo read the history=E2=80=9D is a cop out.

If it keeps coming up, by random individuals, then there is clearly enou=
gh demand that people would go through the challenge of arriving here an=
d presenting it. Even if it is the hundredth time, those people deserve =
our respect to at least copy and paste our previous emails instead of se=
nding them on a wild goose chase.

I did go back and read them, and the original from 10 years ago was so c=
onvoluted it wasn=E2=80=99t even worth it. The one from Lanre was basica=
lly kicked (possibly by a vocal minority) for people not understanding t=
he value, not because the idea was invalid.=20

Here we are, another person who may present it differently to help you u=
nderstand the value. I understand the value, though I don=E2=80=99t agre=
e with it. If I could vote, I would vote yes; even if I never used it be=
cause I understand how it would be used and its usefulness for certain t=
ypes of projects (I=E2=80=99ve def used this sort of pattern on single-f=
ile proof of concepts).

To Lanre and Bilge, good luck! From watching this list for the last few =
years, many people won=E2=80=99t contribute to the conversation until th=
ere is a real RFC/implementation to discuss. It may be worth teaming up.=
 ;)

=E2=80=94 Rob
--256ddc9ab88049ccabb1cb710abd1354
Content-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type=3D"text/css">p.Mso=
Normal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div><br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>On Sun, Jun 16, 2024, at 10:33, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP=
] wrote:<br></div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" style=3D""><div><b=
r></div><div><br></div><div>On 16 June 2024 03:00:39 BST, "Marco Aur=C3=A9=
lio Deleu" &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:deleugyn@gmail.com">deleugyn@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><div>&gt;If you appoint a different jury to try =
a 20 year old case, the decision of the previous jury doesn't have any m=
ore weight than any other evidence on its own.<br></div><div><br></div><=
div>You missed the point of the analogy.&nbsp; The point is that that wo=
uld only happen if you have some specific reason why the case needs to b=
e reopened.&nbsp;<br></div><div><br></div><div>I'm not saying nobody is =
allowed to talk about this. I'm just saying, let's start by looking at t=
he old discussion, and discuss *specifically* what might have changed, r=
ather than waving our hands and saying "10 years is a long time, so no o=
pinion from that long ago can possibly be valid".<br></div><div><br></di=
v><div><br></div><div>&gt;You may have core developers that voted no due=
 to maintenance burden, but if said maintainer is no longer active and n=
ew maintainers don't mind it, it's a moot argument because people change=
d.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The maintenance burden argument is actua=
lly a good example of *not* being about individuals. The argument is not=
 "I don't want to maintain it", it's "we shouldn't burden future maintai=
ners with this".<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>&gt;You may=
 have no votes casted because at the time PHP technical debt couldn't co=
pe with such a change, which maybe isn't relevant anymore because the pr=
oject evolved.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This, on the other hand, is =
a good example of one where we don't need to guess. Look at the archives=
 - were people concerned about the implementation? If so, pointing out t=
hat the implementation would now be simpler would absolutely be a reason=
 to bring it back to discussion.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>=
<div>&gt;You may have community leaders voting no because they inherentl=
y disagree with the concept but if they have moved on to other endeavors=
 and current PHP community members like the concept, then society change=
s play a vital role in a different outcome.<br></div><div><br></div><div=
>Again, let's stop talking in the abstract, and look at this specific ca=
se. Can you point to changes in the usage of PHP that make this feature =
more likely to see wide use or acceptance? Do you think the community at=
 large, who we are trying to represent here, is more or less likely to w=
rite a purely static class in 2024 than in 2014?<br></div><div><br></div=
><div><br></div><div>All I'm asking is that if we are going to revisit f=
eatures we previously rejected, we start with "here's why I think the ar=
guments for and against this feature have changed", rather than "I don't=
 like the old result, I demand a new vote".<br></div><div><br></div><div=
>Regards,<br></div><div>Rowan Tommins<br></div><div>[IMSoP]<br></div><di=
v><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don=E2=80=99t understand =
why we are comparing this to a jury and/or court case. In many countries=
, juries don=E2=80=99t even exist (such as the one I currently reside in=
) so the only context is US TV shows for what that even means. Secondly,=
 RFC=E2=80=99s are not =E2=80=9Con trial=E2=80=9D and can be presented o=
ver and over again without much change. To say =E2=80=9Cgo read the hist=
ory=E2=80=9D is a cop out.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If it keeps comi=
ng up, by random individuals, then there is clearly enough demand that p=
eople would go through the challenge of arriving here and presenting it.=
 Even if it is the hundredth time, those people deserve our respect to a=
t least copy and paste our previous emails instead of sending them on a =
wild goose chase.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I did go back and read th=
em, and the original from 10 years ago was so convoluted it wasn=E2=80=99=
t even worth it. The one from Lanre was basically kicked (possibly by a =
vocal minority) for people not understanding the value, not because the =
idea was invalid.&nbsp;<br></div><div><br></div><div>Here we are, anothe=
r person who may present it differently to help you understand the value=
. I understand the value, though I don=E2=80=99t agree with it. If I cou=
ld vote, I would vote yes; even if I never used it because I understand =
how it would be used and its usefulness for certain types of projects (I=
=E2=80=99ve def used this sort of pattern on single-file proof of concep=
ts).<br></div><div><br></div><div>To Lanre and Bilge, good luck! From wa=
tching this list for the last few years, many people won=E2=80=99t contr=
ibute to the conversation until there is a real RFC/implementation to di=
scuss. It may be worth teaming up. ;)<br></div><div><br></div><div id=3D=
"sig121229152">=E2=80=94 Rob<br></div></body></html>
--256ddc9ab88049ccabb1cb710abd1354--