Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:127136
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8BVd-dqcy7tabMEcOOLZPcqWj9o64tEVPepvHxcQ2BPzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <EE188994-2384-4226-8C09-B786279C5998@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8C+jtqeprvz_h8mXBw1mNp1ZrWrqNPoVpv6=H3Qc5H3iw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHXoPRuZ-oLDnW5pCVp8Y3qXMpgWUJLCD9478-OaZJGzqKQYhg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHXoPRuZ-oLDnW5pCVp8Y3qXMpgWUJLCD9478-OaZJGzqKQYhg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 15:02:58 +0300
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8Bp9StNUo9jyx0bNp9hCFij0D6h35cOJHPjT7vq1SnBiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP True Async RFC Stage 3
To: Oladoyinbo Vincent <oladoyinbov@gmail.com>
Cc: "Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]" <imsop.php@rwec.co.uk>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006fa6920632f82fc6"
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

--0000000000006fa6920632f82fc6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello, Vincent.

> The `spawn` keyword might disqualify this rfc, i talked to alot of php
devs about this rfc and they all had a similar complaint about the keyword,
maybe a keyword choice poll might help when the rfc voting goes live.

To have any kind of vote, we need multiple options. The keyword spawn is
currently the best candidate. If you have a better one, I=E2=80=99m open to
suggestions.

>  This whole rfc seem a little bit complex, which might ruin php codebase
readability, let's keep things simple and concise, first impression matters
for beginners and intermediate php programmers.

I don=E2=80=99t understand how this RFC could make code harder to read. Can=
 you
give a specific example? And what exactly do you think would be difficult
for beginner programmers?

If you know a simpler way to express spawn function + await, I=E2=80=99m op=
en to
suggestions.

> 3.) Let's not derive impression from java at this point, PHP might look
similar to java but programmers hate java for a reason, overbloated way of
doing simple things.

First of all, I=E2=80=99m not taking inspiration from Java. This RFC is the=
 result
of a deep analysis of requirements, solutions, and implementation options =
=E2=80=94
and I approach all of this primarily as a PHP developer, since PHP is where
I have the most experience.

I wouldn=E2=80=99t recommend paying attention to Java hate, because Java is=
 one of
the most widely used languages (probably second only to C). It=E2=80=99s a
general-purpose language used across a broad range of domains. It=E2=80=99s=
 also a
language in which error research and use case studies are conducted =E2=80=
=94 by
some of the brightest minds. Ignoring the experience of Java just because
of the illusion of =E2=80=9Chate=E2=80=9D would be shortsighted =E2=80=94 t=
hat hate is more likely
caused by the fact that there=E2=80=99s no such thing as a universal tool.

As for Java Loom, its model is the closest to PHP =E2=80=94 because of hist=
orical
reasons. The second closest model is Python, which also has a similar
history of adopting async features later. Both languages didn=E2=80=99t hav=
e
built-in async from the beginning, which makes their experience
particularly relevant to PHP. Go, on the other hand, was designed from the
ground up for concurrency =E2=80=94 that makes its lessons less applicable.

And finally, the most important point: this RFC is exactly the way it is
*because* it is designed for PHP, not for Java. For example, in Java you
are always required to define a Scope. In Python, you always define a
TaskGroup. Python has context managers to help simplify this. Java only
offers explicit scope handling. This RFC gives developers the ability to
write simple code without explicitly interacting with a Scope, while still
benefiting from structured concurrency and coroutine control.

And coroutine control is critical for frameworks and real-world projects.
Without points of responsibility for control, you can=E2=80=99t write relia=
ble PHP
code or catch errors easily. If you think the Go approach is simpler =E2=80=
=94
that=E2=80=99s a misconception. Go is not beginner-friendly. Go demands a d=
eep
understanding of async and strict discipline. Go and Rust developers (as
shown in the study linked in the RFC) are very strict in their use of
concurrency. PHP developers are used to a different style =E2=80=94 PHP ten=
ds to
forgive mistakes.

Every part of this RFC exists not out of personal preference, but to solve
real, practical problems.

>

--0000000000006fa6920632f82fc6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hello, Vincent.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>&gt; T=
he `spawn` keyword might disqualify this rfc, i talked to alot of php devs =
about this rfc and they all had a similar complaint about the keyword, mayb=
e a keyword choice poll might help when the rfc voting goes live.</div><div=
><br></div><div>To have any kind of vote, we need multiple options. The key=
word <code>spawn</code> is currently the best candidate. If you have a bett=
er one, I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions.=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><d=
iv>&gt;=C2=A0 This whole rfc seem a little bit complex, which might ruin ph=
p codebase readability, let&#39;s keep things simple and concise, first imp=
ression matters for beginners and intermediate php programmers.</div><div><=
br></div><div>I don=E2=80=99t understand how this RFC could make code harde=
r to read. Can you give a specific example? And what exactly do you think w=
ould be difficult for beginner programmers?</div><div>
<p class=3D"gmail-">If you know a simpler way to express <code>spawn functi=
on + await</code>, I=E2=80=99m open to suggestions.</p><p class=3D"gmail-">=
&gt; 3.) Let&#39;s not derive impression from java at this point, PHP might=
 look similar to java but programmers hate java for a reason, overbloated w=
ay of doing simple things.</p><p class=3D"gmail-">First of all, I=E2=80=99m=
 not taking inspiration from Java. This RFC is the result of a deep analysi=
s of requirements, solutions, and implementation options =E2=80=94 and I ap=
proach all of this primarily as a PHP developer, since PHP is where I have =
the most experience.</p><p class=3D"gmail-">I wouldn=E2=80=99t recommend pa=
ying attention to Java hate, because Java is one of the most widely used la=
nguages (probably second only to C). It=E2=80=99s a general-purpose languag=
e used across a broad range of domains. It=E2=80=99s also a language in whi=
ch error research and use case studies are conducted =E2=80=94 by some of t=
he brightest minds. Ignoring the experience of Java just because of the ill=
usion of =E2=80=9Chate=E2=80=9D would be shortsighted =E2=80=94 that hate i=
s more likely caused by the fact that there=E2=80=99s no such thing as a un=
iversal tool.</p><p class=3D"gmail-">As for Java Loom, its model is the clo=
sest to PHP =E2=80=94 because of historical reasons. The second closest mod=
el is Python, which also has a similar history of adopting async features l=
ater. Both languages didn=E2=80=99t have built-in async from the beginning,=
 which makes their experience particularly relevant to PHP. Go, on the othe=
r hand, was designed from the ground up for concurrency =E2=80=94 that make=
s its lessons less applicable.</p><p class=3D"gmail-">And finally, the most=
 important point: this RFC is exactly the way it is <em>because</em> it is =
designed for PHP, not for Java. For example, in Java you are always require=
d to define a <code>Scope</code>. In Python, you always define a <code>Task=
Group</code>. Python has context managers to help simplify this. Java only =
offers explicit scope handling. This RFC gives developers the ability to wr=
ite simple code without explicitly interacting with a <code>Scope</code>, w=
hile still benefiting from structured concurrency and coroutine control.</p=
><p class=3D"gmail-">And coroutine control is critical for frameworks and r=
eal-world projects. Without points of responsibility for control, you can=
=E2=80=99t write reliable PHP code or catch errors easily. If you think the=
 Go approach is simpler =E2=80=94 that=E2=80=99s a misconception. Go is not=
 beginner-friendly. Go demands a deep understanding of async and strict dis=
cipline. Go and Rust developers (as shown in the study linked in the RFC) a=
re very strict in their use of concurrency. PHP developers are used to a di=
fferent style =E2=80=94 PHP tends to forgive mistakes.</p><p class=3D"gmail=
-">




</p><p class=3D"gmail-">Every part of this RFC exists not out of personal p=
reference, but to solve real, practical problems.</p></div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote gmail_quote_container"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-le=
ft:1ex"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div></div>

--0000000000006fa6920632f82fc6--