Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:61457
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.42 as permitted sender)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
In-Reply-To: <CAFWS2+HzSXtq4+qUqiRVqLOw+WdMhSJxsgS6KVh8i-A3T6NdtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:31:22 -0700
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <2C7C71C2-5BD9-4B9E-A960-C62BBDFCB6F8@gmail.com>
References: <CAFWS2+HzSXtq4+qUqiRVqLOw+WdMhSJxsgS6KVh8i-A3T6NdtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ronald Chmara <ronabop@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] A new idea on PHP6.
From: shadda@gmail.com (Matt Wilson)

I'll start off by saying that I am, personally, a great fan of OO. Pure =
OO languages have always tickled me just right.

But I question the idea that making something pure OO makes it better. =
And in PHP, it wouldn't be a mere revamp of the OOP system like php5 =
did, it would fundamentally change the language. It wouldn't be PHP =
anymore. Also, it'd be slow. Very slow. There's no real way to keep =
PHP's model and go the route you're talking without turning the language =
into a vegetable.

And that's okay. Because PHP isn't a one-size-fits-all tool. It's a web =
language, and it excels at being a web language. Why can't we just keep =
it that way, and use the tool appropriate for the job at hand? I wish we =
could stop trying to make PHP everything to everyone and just accept =
that sometimes java is the answer. Or python. Or ruby. Or any other =
language or technology that fits.

Making PHP 100% OO won't make it better at web development. In fact, I'd =
argue it'd do the opposite, as a once simple language would now inherit =
not just the features that go with a pure OO language, but also the same =
considerations one has to make when dealing with such a language. =
Moreover, a change like this would result in one of two outcomes: PHP =
follows through with a solid, feature-complete OO language specification =
(unlikely) and thus loses the flexibility of being a dirty little =
dynamically typed language that cares little for enforcing type =
constraints, or, much more likely, we get a half assed solution because =
PHP wouldn't be PHP without that flexibility, and it's largely =
incompatible with a true OO architecture.

Just my $0.02

On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:17 PM, Ronald Chmara wrote:

> With PHP 6, lets start with a:
> Pure
> Object
> Oriented
> PHP
>=20
> ...idea, and extend it out, so we can have a:
> Structured
> Heuristic
> Idealistic
> Taxonomy
>=20
> ..so we reduce user confusion, and eliminate the vast majority of our
> userbase, (thus cutting down on bug reports, of course)  so we can
> have a:
> Heuristic
> Accessible
> Readable
> Available
> Helpful
> ...language advance.
>=20
> (This is not meant as a serious post, but as a post to increase levity
> on this list. Your mileage may vary. Cape does not enable the wearer
> to fly.)
>=20
> -Ronabop
>=20
> --=20
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>=20