Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129342
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2025 18:42:23 +0000
To: Edmond Dantes <edmond.ht@gmail.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] True Async RFC 1.6
Message-ID: <DDRLe-pGW_8NWAfqCCqzqhTpNS6kXrcEum-9QO3QZAUoMd0gCCX7T6NXfqCgg2XPIg7VM4IGgTM3RqjCz1kdeGFgY3IHKr9Y7oJDV7_06OE=@proton.me>
In-Reply-To: <CAMW7n8D0QshP8VhGOUqVnC+Uwf88TC_yy_mQdeNZW_go5YLdcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMW7n8D0QshP8VhGOUqVnC+Uwf88TC_yy_mQdeNZW_go5YLdcw@mail.gmail.com>
Feedback-ID: 71064319:user:proton
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: carlos_silvaaaaa@proton.me (carlos_silvaaaaa)

Enviado com um e-mail seguro do Proton Mail.

Em quarta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2025 =C3=A0s 09:38, Edmond Dantes <edmon=
d.ht@gmail.com> escreveu:

> Hello all
>=20
> According to all previous discussions, version 1.6 of this RFC has
> been prepared and is now being submitted for a vote:
>=20
> Voting Page: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async/voting
> RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async
>=20
> The vote officially starts tomorrow, as previously announced.
>=20
> For version 1.6 the following important change was made:
> All input/output functions are now bound by the shared requirement of
> being non-blocking with respect to the process. However, the specific
> behavior of each function may (optionally) be defined in separate
> RFCs.
>=20
> Thus, I/O functions themselves are not part of this RFC, but the main
> RFC defines the general way in which they must operate. Thus (as I see
> it), the RFC achieves a balance between cohesion and separation of
> concerns.
>=20
> Since the discussion period has ended, I will not be engaging in
> further debate (except regarding the voting process itself). If you
> have any questions for me of any kind, you may ask them either in a
> separate thread or privately. (This also means that I will not be
> answering RFC-related questions in this thread). I will be glad to
> hear your opinions and feedback. I wish all participants the best of
> luck.
>=20
> ---
> Best Regards, Ed

Most of the people who advocate for this are responsible for the language's=
 backwardness; they don't know how to conduct a conversation, it's just the=
ir opinion and nothing more. Worse, many times they aren't even using the l=
anguage; they're stuck in the past, like dinosaurs. And the conversation is=
 always the same: "Want asynchronous programming? Change languages, go to N=
ode, switch to Go," but it's not that simple.

I'm amazed at how shallow their knowledge is, yet they defend the cause as =
if they were experts, without even trying to delve deeper into the subject.=
 Those who do this don't lift a finger to move in that direction, and inste=
ad they come up with things nobody asked for, insignificant things that onl=
y 1% of people will use.

They say few people use asynchronous PHP. The adoption is totally different=
 when the language already offers it natively. "Ah, but it will only be use=
d by a small percentage of PHP users," and what about the useless things we=
 didn't ask for that will only be used by 1%?

You could argue that it's easy to say, that they dedicate time from their h=
obby to improving PHP, and I appreciate that, but someone, in this case Ed,=
 also dedicated time to it.