Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:22981
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <444FCC7C.5060004@iamjochem.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:39:40 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcus Boerger <helly@php.net>
CC: bu@orbitel.bg, php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <444E0854.2000804@emini.dk> <200604251602.42837.bu@orbitel.bg> <444E2108.8050203@iamjochem.com> <749874265.20060426211537@marcus-boerger.de>
In-Reply-To: <749874265.20060426211537@marcus-boerger.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Static properties
From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas)

Marcus Boerger wrote:
> Hello Jochem,

hi Marcus,

thanks for your response (It remains a bit of a honour when
someone from the dev ranks takes time to give feedback -
new insight often follows as secondary benefit).

> 
> Tuesday, April 25, 2006, 3:15:52 PM, you wrote:
> 
> 
>>Petar Nedyalkov wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday 25 April 2006 14:30, Edin Kadribasic wrote:
>>>
>>>

...

> 
> Do not mix class based OO like PHP and prototype based OO like JavaScript.

agreed - my point was more that to speak of 'the OO paradigm' might be considered
rather useless considering the disparity of paradigms that exist in the myriad
of 'OO' languages out there (I named scripting languages because thats all I
really know :-)

> 
>>(anyone with the argument that PHP!=Ruby or PHP!=Javascript might consider that
>>PHP!="the OO paradigm")
> 
> 
> PHP simply supports its own set and view of OO.
> 

indeed, which is more than fair, but I doubt you would deny that the 'set/view'
you speak of is set in stone - then goals post do move now and again because of
new developer wishes and/or insights into usage in the real world.

...

> 
>>>
>>>>Was this not possible because of the engine implementation of the static
>>>>properties?
>>>>
> 
> 
> It is just some decision that was taken that the newer OO stuff should be a
> bit more strict.

'a bit'? ;-) that said your answer is honest and to the point and makes the
position of the devs clear - which is a good thing - knowing exactly what kind of
dogfood is on offer allows for informed decision by the user.

I realise that it must be difficult to strike a balance between those that
strive to drive the language to ever greater heights of <buzzword>enterprise-readiness</buzzword>
and the lower echalons that protest/struggle against/with the increasing
strictness of the language. (personally I find myself in between ... and sometimes
finding it hard to keep my existing code compliant :-)

> 
> Best regards,
>  Marcus

many thanks for your clarification.

rgds,
Jochem