Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:5228
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <841D90E489448A4F804E1D1B95768BF7D4626A@lis-exchange3.lmu.ac.uk>
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:51:06 -0000 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Proposal: Array syntax
From: M.Ford@lmu.ac.uk ("Ford, Mike               [LSS]")

On 05 November 2003 15:57, Ilia Alshanetsky contributed these pearls of
wisdom:

> On November 5, 2003 10:34 am, Christian Schneider wrote:
>> PHP is a mix of C, Perl and other styles anyway, why deny it?
>> It's strength is that it's a pragmatic and simple language
>> but that doesn't mean that nothing should be changed ever.
> 
> PHP strength (IMHO) is it's simple and clear syntax, which
> allows people who
> come from background in other programming languages can
> quickly recognize and
> get used to. Creating confusing alternate syntaxes will bring
> us ever closer
> to Perl 6 where there are dozens of way to do the same thing.
> The end results
> in a confusing and hard to read/write language that all but
> the most dedicated of users refuse to use.

Yes, I agree with this, but I also think that a modicum of alternatives in a
few strategically chosen places also makes a language easier to use for
people coming from different backgrounds and with different style prejudices
-- or even just with differently-built brains!  A prime example of this is
the "alternative structure syntax" -- as a confirmed and long-time hater of
the curly-brackets-for-everything style (as a result of many years of using
it in B, c, JavaScript and others), I was overjoyed to discover the
alternative :-syntax in PHP and use it exclusively in all my scripts.
Contrariwise, there are some features in (and not in!) PHP that I think are
pretty silly, but some of its prime maintainers defend to the death -- well,
that's their opinion and I would defend to the death their right to have it,
whilst nevertheless continuing to disagree with them.

>> I don't want to break existing programs. And I don't care
>> about range() (or even list() too much for that matter), I
>> just recognize the fact the I'm using a lot of array() and it
>> is both unnecessarily hard to write _and_ read.
> 
> That's bull, 5 characters is hard to write? If anything those
> 5 characters make it absolutely clear to ANYONE that the data
> is an array 
> and not an
> object or a string or some other type. When I first saw the
> syntax is took me
> a few seconds to realize what it does and the problem would
> only be compounded when the code is found within an
> pre-existing 
> complex script.

Well, my view on that is the exact contrary -- I find the 5 letters in
question and their associated parentheses easy to lose in the surrounding
and very similar code, whereas the [] syntax both stands out much better
against surrounding noise and is, for me, more intuitive.  I think there's
room for both -- I and all the other +1s would no doubt enthusiastically
switch over wholesale to [], whilst you and the other -1s would stick with
array().  I would have no problem with that, and to me it would be an
advantage of the language that it supports such choice.

Cheers!

Mike

-- 
Mike Ford,  Electronic Information Services Adviser,
Learning Support Services, Learning & Information Services,
JG125, James Graham Building, Leeds Metropolitan University,
Beckett Park, LEEDS,  LS6 3QS,  United Kingdom
Email: m.ford@leedsmet.ac.uk
Tel: +44 113 283 2600 extn 4730      Fax:  +44 113 283 3211