Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:25160 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3899 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Aug 2006 07:14:50 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 3884 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 07:14:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 07:14:50 -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 ([80.74.107.235:52562] helo=mail.zend.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.3 r(11751M)) with ESMTP id 9E/4D-44390-A62A1D44 for ; Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:14:50 -0400 Received: (qmail 16916 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2006 07:13:43 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO zeev-notebook.zend.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 3 Aug 2006 07:13:43 -0000 Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060803101138.07b236b0@zend.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0 Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:14:44 +0300 To: Marcus Boerger Cc: Richard Lynch ,internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: <810494294.20060803000645@marcus-boerger.de> References: <18810497049.20060801234124@marcus-boerger.de> <44CFDB2B.1010907@cschneid.com> <20060802010156.5be0258c@pierre-u64> <44CFDF89.6010506@lerdorf.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20060802153119.0c2193c0@zend.com> <59598.67.108.68.40.1154555745.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> <810494294.20060803000645@marcus-boerger.de> 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) At 01:06 03/08/2006, Marcus Boerger wrote: >Hello Richard, > >Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 11:55:45 PM, you wrote: > > > On Wed, August 2, 2006 7:32 am, Zeev Suraski wrote: > >> 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. > > > And there are people who actually LIKE the 'loose OO programming' > > paradigm. > > > Presumably also some who don't really care, but who have significant > > bodies of code utilizing the 'looseness' who will simply refuse to > > upgrade to PHP 5 -- thus exacerbating the problem of PHP 4 sticking > > around for far longer than some would like. > >There is no problem with 4. It works it has its friends. Why should we >discontinue it like Microsoft would do? Give me any reason. We just do >not add new features. I can think of a bunch, security problems, bugs and stuck-in-the-past-technology-wise problems. Why should someone who wants to use more modern technologies like SimpleXML or ext/soap be forced to change the way he's writing PHP classes? Answer - no reason. Which is why compatibility and considering how the 'loose people' will be able to use PHP versions is extremely important. Zeev