Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:64818
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50EDCA83.1050904@lerdorf.com>
References: <CAAyV7nEWD7SYjjN_kia9rSknjL2BKi157G1r5VJPfTkHB4Y5ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<50EDBEA5.1050201@sugarcrm.com>
	<CAAyV7nHoMwM=Ge8+97mmUiNR1+ChCq3mW+Dgx0r9Hc=yn6Q8=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<50EDCA83.1050904@lerdorf.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:29:06 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAyV7nF98QvWcYa1UT9eTDt_gZby5RzPhnFD9ith=mjV6xmK-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Lerdorf <rasmus@lerdorf.com>
Cc: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>, 
	"internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042f9f9abde74e04d2ef2913
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Was Reflection annotations reader - We Need A Vision
From: ircmaxell@gmail.com (Anthony Ferrara)

--f46d042f9f9abde74e04d2ef2913
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Rasmus,

> Rasmus: "A general purpose scripting language with a focus on web
> > development"
> > You: "being simple and practical and focused on the web"
> >
> > While they both have "web" in them, they provide very different goals and
> > metrics with which to gauge contributions by. And that's the entire point
> > of my call for a single, consistent and official vision...
>
> They don't seem different to me, and the first one is the documented
> statement that has been the first thing people see on http://php.net for
> years and years. You can add "simple and practical" to mine or add
> "general purpose" to the Stas one and it doesn't conflict in any way.
>

There's a difference between a byline and a vision. But even deeper, the
"vision" that you wrote widens the scope of PHP development into basically
all possible directions, as long as Web Development is a focus.

Stas's vision on the other hand narrows the scope quite significantly by
focusing on simple and practical implementations.

Here's an example of the difference. Let's say that an RFC came out to
introducelist comprehentions PHP. According to your vision, that's
completely on the table and is welcome. But Stas's stated vision would
counter that because it's not "simple".

And Stas's stated vision leads to things like this:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5034365 It is trivial to misinterpret
(or perhaps not so mis) it as "we can't do anything complex, because think
of the new people".

What I'm proposing here is a stated vision that clarifies and sets a
reasonably narrow vision for what development should do. I'm not saying it
needs to be a 100% "we can do this but never that", but something to guide
progress rather than the random thoughts of the people who just so happen
be reading the discussion at the time.

Something like: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

Something to guide discussion that's applicable primarily to PHP...

Anthony

--f46d042f9f9abde74e04d2ef2913--