Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:40374
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain iamjochem.com from 194.109.193.121 cause and error)
Message-ID: <48C5886F.2030404@iamjochem.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:17:51 +0200
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stanislav Malyshev <stas@zend.com>, 
 php internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <ADD0525F-F900-4F3A-9B76-1ED332CA31E0@pooteeweet.org> <486FA5FB.1000300@php.net> <E06A1FB3-971F-4D4F-850A-D0255F7275F7@pooteeweet.org> <48C55855.4080602@zend.com> <A077B6EC-3E30-4F46-91CA-FD75D578CC7A@pooteeweet.org> <48C5624A.1040901@zend.com> <F4.39.33249.21565C84@pb1.pair.com> <48C56743.2060706@zend.com> <48C56DDF.3060301@iamjochem.com> <48C57296.6020200@zend.com> <48C57877.6060400@iamjochem.com> <48C57ADE.603@zend.com>
In-Reply-To: <48C57ADE.603@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: towards a 5.3 release
From: jochem@iamjochem.com (Jochem Maas)

Stanislav Malyshev schreef:
> Hi!

Hi,

I'm not going to do this offlist with you,

>> guns are dangerous yet they are sold by the bucket load. either don't
>> sell guns or let people decide how to use them, don't sell'em then 
>> dictate
>> that they can't pull the trigger.
> 
> I think it would really help if we avoided discussing issues of gun 
> control, legalizing marijuana, marrying people of the same sex, and 
> another very fascinating issues and concentrate on the namespaces. Can we?

it's a metaphor, and you know that. apart from the intended
metaphor there was not discussion whatsoever, merely a statement of fact.

I don't give a hoot about gun control or any of the other so-called fascinating
issues (as you put it), I do care about the fact that namespaces are
pretty borked atm. That, and the fact that you seem to be dictating exactly
what is right and what is wrong regardless of any evidence people put infront
of you.

>> I won't be using namespaces in 'real life' code at all. I've never
> 
> Then I'm sorry but why you have an opinion on them at all? Sorry if I 
> sound somewhat blunt, but if you aren't going to use them why you care 
> so much about them? 

somewhat bluntly: because I *want* to use namespaces, but the implementation
is not good enough to be usable. but really the issue of why I care is
irrelevant, it is apparent that I do, that is enough.

you may consider my opinions invalid or unimportant, obviously that is
is your perogative ... but you haven't mentioned that (and neither
have you ignored my post, which would imply it) ... your merely insinuating
I don't have a right to an opinion ... well I certainly do, and you have the
right to ignore it, but not to question my right to it as such.

> We want to accommodate all users as much as 
> possible, but if you are not going to be a user - why you want to take 
> part in designing them? 

I play with it, but I'm not going to risk production code with it thanks.

And regardless of whether I will or will not use namespaces in *my* code
I will still be faced with having to deal with them sooner or later when
incorporating other people's libraries and/or hacking the code on some
CMS/Blog/forum app (as I do have to now and again)

It might surprise you that my interest lies in php's improvement,
even though I'm merely a joe-nobody-php-coder without the skills
required to code for the engine (which I'd love to do, as the books
on C/C++ on my living room table attest to).

> It is very hard to find a common solution 
> satisfactory for all if you start with the premise that no solution 
> would be satisfactory for you because you just not going to use any.

your merely twisting my words to satisfy your own position.
Aparently I have an opinion on this matter, please just accept that ...
I've being reading, thinking and worrying about the namespaces for a long
time and I've decided to speak up. it really is important that you start
to deal with the issues being presented rather than trying to undermine
and second-guess the validity of everyone else's opinions and critisisms.

I didn't start with the premise that nothing would be satisfactory, merely
the premise that the current implementation has major issues.

>> I'm sorry is that a function in namespace Utility or a static method of
>> class Utility?
> 
> Who cares, except for the engine internals?

we'll it will break my IDE, so I'll have to go hunting for the definition
by hand (which I won't know what to look for), for starters, but mostly
because I like to be able to know what code is supposed to be doing,
what it is supposed to be calling by reading it and not by guessing and
having to run it (and hope I got my includes in the right order.).

do I understand you correctly in that you seem to think being able to
understand code just be reading it is pointless?

>> I understand your concerns about performance, of course namespaces need
>> to be performant in order to be truly usable in production BUT clear, 
>> usable
>> functioning needs to take priority before performance is considered ...
> 
> No, not really. If the solution doesn't work (i.e. makes your code order 
> of magnitude slower) nobody will use it however good it is in theory.

something that is slow can still be considered correct. you've completely
mixed up the concepts of 'theory' and 'practice' and also incorrectly concluded
that slow code equates to non-working code.

I have never suggested that performance is not important, merely that to
use the performance argument as an excuse to avoid taking any critism of
the current implementation seriously is very bad form.

make it work THEN make it work fast. otherwise you'll end up with
something very fast that never quite lives up to expectations and additionally
continually causes pain/confusion, how ever much you hack into it
(nevermind all the BC issues you'd have created for yourself by letting
the status quo implementation into the wild [in an official release]).

frankly I am quite sure that you are capable of fixing all the issues
*and* then making it performant. judging by your extremely defensive
attitude (at least as far as the namespace implementation goed) you
don't have that faith in yourself, possibly a little less energy spent
on defensive posturing would give you the breathing room required to
deliver another brilliant addition to the language (one based on
'common solution' as you put it).

rgds,
Jochem