Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:34908 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 58612 invoked by uid 1010); 24 Jan 2008 01:05:04 -0000 Delivered-To: ezmlm-scan-internals@lists.php.net Delivered-To: ezmlm-internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 58597 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2008 01:05:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Jan 2008 01:05:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=lisavee83@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=lisavee83@gmail.com; sender-id=pass; domainkeys=bad Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 72.14.202.181 as permitted sender) DomainKey-Status: bad X-DomainKeys: Ecelerity dk_validate implementing draft-delany-domainkeys-base-01 X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: lisavee83@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 72.14.202.181 ro-out-1112.google.com Linux 2.4/2.6 Received: from [72.14.202.181] ([72.14.202.181:13880] helo=ro-out-1112.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 66/4E-17042-F34E7974 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:05:04 -0500 Received: by ro-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a14so33595rof.8 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:05:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=AST7C7JSB/vEa61aoI6nNk0f+srGBTxeYPxz6ZJ/oHY=; b=wFiuvk9D2S0HM7tBDX0k65AzMrdWbpq2dAnui+LALUzsY6rC45lmXjuQEWZcbyoo2ssay3Ux8gJsuEdSHGC7w+NKXEXzlvSMsVTnCOcUPYkSAuA7OVFBLm8IwsYEKHLd8YUzBLgFh1l7eXVhvysYqelTOagRGwoZna7n2KN+D60= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=DpS0sIS5DC8y+j3KUl8M2kE2P+O7+YWj09hO1bjPONNQno2M5EuuheFTZZeiMoqNwdJ115FqL6pgjjstYLzgS7pZdzZzMJsJ6kOigXu5A+Nx51aMtiPq8zDvPNc8YgHUzDJ7U1F/tVDeJqM3NkxXuXSBvUYcnc8+9jUMp0auxSs= Received: by 10.143.160.1 with SMTP id m1mr13525wfo.10.1201136700723; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:05:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.78.20 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:05:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:05:00 -0800 To: "Chris Stockton" Cc: ceo@l-i-e.com, php-dev In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_24910_3450624.1201136700722" References: <4794AE48.20005@daylessday.org> <38791.98.193.37.55.1201055548.squirrel@www.l-i-e.com> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] why we must get rid of unicode.semantics switch ASAP From: lisavee83@gmail.com ("Lisa Vee83") ------=_Part_24910_3450624.1201136700722 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline .. On Jan 23, 2008 11:14 AM, Chris Stockton wrote: > I partially agree, I have been watching this discussion and it's funny > how we have such a class of high end developers saying to break old > PHP code. But, the majority of the success of PHP is not due to this > small class of high end developers, it's due to it's availability in a > shared hosting environment, and the ease of use for beginners, and the > oodles of fairly poor quality code that is easy to copy and paste onto > peoples websites. > > Look at the adoption of php4, many webhosts haven't even updated to > PHP5 completely due to things like register_globals and small > backwards compatibility breakage. The list of problems is small and > correctable, if you give system engineers at all of these hosting > companies the choice of A. Upgrade to php6 and drive support calls > through the roof, or B. Stay at PHP4/5 for eternity until a more > (insert your complaints / rants here) language comes along to dethrone > PHP. > > Problem is, PHP has been built to great success based on it's early > foundation, but now a group of high class developers want it to be > more then PHP was built onto. You will sacrifice it's success if > backwards compatibility is not just, broke, but obliterated. Why > change PHP's philosophy? Keep it easy for the new user, keep it > successful, and make me work a little more when I want to implement my > "high class" development methodologies. I don't mind, I do it already. > > I write this as a "high class" developer. > > -1 > > -Chris > > On Jan 22, 2008 7:32 PM, Richard Lynch wrote: > > On Mon, January 21, 2008 8:38 am, Antony Dovgal wrote: > > > > > > 6 reasons why we must to get rid of The Switch ASAP > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > I was +1... > > > > Until folks started posting that old PHP scripts won't run as-is in > > PHP 6?... > > > > That's just daft... > > > > When my webhost upgrades to PHP 6, I need all my old scripts to just > > keep on chugging away, as much as possible... > > > > I really think we're stuck with the default "string" being an > > old-school binary string, unless you want to lose a LOT of users in a > > hurry, or have PHP 5 stick around forever and ever. > > > > -- > > Some people have a "gift" link here. > > Know what I want? > > I want you to buy a CD from some indie artist. > > http://cdbaby.com/from/lynch > > Yeah, I get a buck. So? > > > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > ------=_Part_24910_3450624.1201136700722--