Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:129907
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMW7n8B9XHzF5ND21-hNYtw26EnE+0b+W0Nv=wb_ayMmu4CbKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8C1m08+pKKYBGkMnNZmGmu-_kkxS-r_SCuRupBY+RHe5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANCsWvfXWDjdmKFFQvV0Ger6yNVSfOhQqnbyTr7bEQHSjmXyLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <79CDB2CC-E397-436E-B5A2-10DA1E451A97@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8BJcC-X-sA0NB_oQLfzry+331TfO1uhvNDGZcoSxe7bFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <D427F18D-CDEC-4DDE-8169-71F8156F2E48@rwec.co.uk> <CAMW7n8BjxUUiizXbD1Lb526WsV=6erew-rK70gvMoWoQ2sqDmQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADK1yX+fA2epqOn2rcesmVBZMj4taeARhyuNdTky9aH4B6NhWg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8ALJ2w7iSwVX1TvyiosN_dzj=0NV0XBRZeQ3Hdov98C6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEKnhAFbU5H3qs-s0_FsT6w1Bu8n6HD+BQRt1SoOCUwa3XtT_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMW7n8CFOafm21nbzPRx35ZXKzi-B0WC+7=X7dJMT=f=GDan-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9f2fb78d-143e-c84a-8243-97e0352497e4@php.net> <CAMW7n8C41JB14qNM9SqjUEk3_nYMegMqUywR2if6g0YCLKFZ+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <9d2962b9-2278-4fae-9241-9def0f33711f@app.fastmail.com> <CAMW7n8C=87rrzxH4n=_XKkVhmxG731cdnsfF-ujYs1ko-O=j9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <213a47c7-cb2e-4d5c-b26b-ce18e3ce6d00@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <213a47c7-cb2e-4d5c-b26b-ce18e3ce6d00@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 21:24:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMW7n8BuzWbj18+1aVWzOvx-WOvN-Twa2TVh6VT+b16HE+szSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] True Async RFC 1.7
To: Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com>
Cc: php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: edmond.ht@gmail.com (Edmond Dantes)

Hello

>  This proposal is *huge*, and subsequent drafts are often very heavily mo=
dified,

This proposal used to be huge, but it no longer is. The current
version contains a fairly simple API with a minimal set of functions.
The conceptual core of the RFC can be described in just two or three
sentences.
It=E2=80=99s also worth taking into account that the RFC does not propose
anything new to the programming world. The principles are well known,
and existing analogues already exist. This is very important from a
comprehension standpoint.

> and subsequent drafts are often very heavily modified, so that means peop=
le need to spend an hour or two each time there's a change fully digesting =
it.

At least since the summer revision, the RFC has not changed
significantly. Most importantly, its core principles have remained
exactly the same for a long time. Version 1.7 is a purely incremental
change, which is clearly reflected in the history.

> But regardless of the cause, there are definitely people who feel their c=
oncerns have been dismissed (rightly or wrongly).

Unfortunately, I don=E2=80=99t keep a log of concerns, but I generally prov=
ide
feedback on all issues. However, my responses are sometimes ignored.
Perhaps the language barrier is to blame? There are several
specialists who have an excellent command of English, but I remember
that last time their arguments were not really taken into account
either. So I=E2=80=99m not sure that the issue is only the language barrier=
.
This is more what I would call a =E2=80=9Ccrisis of trust.=E2=80=9D There a=
re
different groups of developers between whom there is no good
communication.

> there was a de facto consensus that Nikita was The Lead(tm), and so if Ni=
kita liked something it would probably pass because people trusted Nikita,

Exactly. Changes were introduced into the language not because
consensus was reached, but because there was an authority who could
afford to push those changes through. So does it turn out that over
all this time, not a single complex feature has been accepted into the
language through a purely democratic vote?

> What is really needed here, frankly, is for there to be more names on the=
 RFC, and more familiar names.  People who have the "street cred" to be tru=
sted, or that we know how to engage with

I could, for example, hand this project over to Daniil Gentili, if he
wouldn=E2=80=99t mind.
He is extremely competent in this area, and moreover, he likely has an
excellent command of English (at least that=E2=80=99s my impression).
Or perhaps to someone else. That=E2=80=99s not really where the problem lie=
s.
If that=E2=80=99s what will help move things forward, why not?

------
Ed