Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25123
Return-Path: <zeev@zend.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 56523 invoked by uid 1010); 2 Aug 2006 13:12:48 -0000
Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net
Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 56504 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2006 13:12:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 2 Aug 2006 13:12:47 -0000
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: zeev@zend.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 80.74.107.235 mail.zend.com Linux 2.5 (sometimes 2.4) (4)
Received: from ([80.74.107.235:13862] helo=mail.zend.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP
	id 39/3D-45114-A6B90D44 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 08:32:44 -0400
Received: (qmail 13346 invoked from network); 2 Aug 2006 12:31:36 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO zeev-notebook.zend.com) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 2 Aug 2006 12:31:36 -0000
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060802153119.0c2193c0@zend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:32:39 +0300
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: pierre.php@gmail.com,internals@lists.php.net,
 Christian Schneider <cschneid@cschneid.com>
In-Reply-To: <44CFDF89.6010506@lerdorf.com>
References: <EB.71.29121.B6690C44@pb1.pair.com>
 <18810497049.20060801234124@marcus-boerger.de>
 <44CFDB2B.1010907@cschneid.com>
 <20060802010156.5be0258c@pierre-u64>
 <44CFDF89.6010506@lerdorf.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RfC: rethink OO inheritance strictness
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)

I believe the problem is that 10 years ago we introduced what can be 
described as 'loose OO programming', and we're replacing it (instead 
of augmenting it) with strict OO programming.

Zeev

At 02:11 02/08/2006, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>Pierre wrote:
>>On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:52:27 +0200
>>cschneid@cschneid.com (Christian Schneider) wrote:
>>
>>>Why can't we agree that people use classes in different ways (call 
>>>it non-OO ways if you want) and restrain from forcing ones views 
>>>onto everybody? PHP works well because it of the freedom it gives, 
>>>not because of the limitations.
>><rant>
>>Because there is people who does not want to know the PHP way. They
>>want their {put your fashion OO language here} way in PHP. Strictness
>>was never a goal in php.
>>But it looks like the opinion of the current php users do not matter,
>>only the ones coming from {put your fashion OO language here}. It seems
>>that they have hard time to justify the usage of {put your fashion OO
>>language here}, time to bork PHP.
>></rant>
>
>Relax people.  There are certain paradigms and expectations people 
>have.   The original PHP design met the expectations and paradigms 
>of a loosely typed procedural language.  Now, some 12 years later we 
>are trying to meet a new class of expectations.  We have kids coming 
>out of universities today who barely know what procedural 
>programming is.  All they know is OOP and we want to give them 
>something that meets their expectations.  We have to be careful that 
>we don't ignore too many OOP rules or we would fail to meet these 
>expectations.  The PHP way is not to make everything look like the 
>procedural approach.  The PHP way is to cater to peoples' existing 
>knowledge and build a language that does what people expect it 
>to.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't loosen up some OOP rules where 
>it makes sense, but it also doesn't mean we should ignore them completely.
>
>-Rasmus
>
>--
>PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php