Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129255
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8DiWK6y=76cRTpx+6eGmBgytd2HWs2C-OH5rd8WNLffFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8Dp3siTp0NKGc=-8aNg=Mqoxug9Osgn2399P1v4wi3n5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <6618a91c-5393-4f40-88b5-b5041ee09deb@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8CeDFSaN0e4Kr=1jrJyHEonHokfxcY4gdf6L3FqdH1FZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3e0cf0a1-c1a3-4e05-97ba-0eeb7f559a53@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8AX7O7x99KGdPSai6sPP1Xd6V4ojQ7CEWmxthNLPM2hyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <d17e07bf-9664-48e8-b7c4-39142f3cfbf2@app.fastmail.com> <CAEKnhAHp9fCOD0NCLE9J25dTkVd72csHGb3HGwATg+qyxNaFwg@mail.gmail.com>
 <41c5eed0-dd1b-4ea4-99cf-f6d16682bd7f@app.fastmail.com> <CAEKnhAEmSZn=Tr24YC9wxAUk1NPM529GR_iBWmX=fKpXxpuXRg@mail.gmail.com>
 <f777dba4-b29f-4744-889e-131ec730e305@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8AovFXC6by4AyAwh0U9Gax2UQ-MkkpwqCPkP8hNz52hew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAHe9ToAH8tMppPSWG7j-1R+ho6Kf49HqSVXesnCX1_Cog@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEKnhAHe9ToAH8tMppPSWG7j-1R+ho6Kf49HqSVXesnCX1_Cog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2025 06:22:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8BOo+qAi4P8TcPnyDTtZJ+vedDUL9LMWdoEaaTTj=KCmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: PHP True Async RFC Stage 5
To: Jakub Zelenka <bukka@php.net>
Cc: Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes>, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>, 
	Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

Hello.

> I think Rob has got a point that you don't really need to give such promi=
ses that lack on details.
The problem is that the phrase from the RFC is being interpreted in a
distorted way, and meaning is being attributed to it that it never
had. Not to mention the fact that real-world facts are being ignored.

> The problem is that no tests are really provided with the RFC in the PR t=
hat can be easily checked.
> I think it's kind of a problem of all RFC's that don't have implementatio=
n (this one have but it's really hard to extract).
> The people can only guess your intention but cannot really verify them as=
 they could if there was implementation.

This RFC has more than 300 tests that you can review. They=E2=80=99re also
sorted into folders, have descriptions, and are quite easy to read.
There are also two Dockerfiles for this RFC that let you run PHP 8.6
and try all the features with a single command.
But wait, this is only the beginning of the fun.

The funniest part is that this RFC has effectively existed in the real
world for many years (7 or 10?), and there are entire teams of
developers who have been using PHP according to this RFC for a long
time.
And even if this project had no code at all, you can at any moment
take Swoole or Swow, try PHP on steroids with real code, and see how
this RFC affects existing code.

I would understand if this RFC were proposing something very new,
something that had never existed in PHP before. But the irony is that
it proposes to standardize what has already been in PHP for many years
but has never been made a standard. And instead of discussing
implementation details, we=E2=80=99re discussing that 2 + 2 =E2=89=A0 5.