Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:65969
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain inviqa.com from 74.125.82.170 cause and error)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
In-Reply-To: <CAPwsocECUoCp_joTsazyDK61tabPZ=yx+ffiYbigtyS3FH9zZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:46:18 +0000
Cc: PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <E4AB2F37-1F80-4E9A-BA1F-70C17F4B9F96@inviqa.com>
References: <CAESVnVo1z2RA=87GjJa9onW-i91wW_fQ=unED=bDK=LmrKwJ=g@mail.gmail.com> <CADq_CxqBXzcippi6RynuZDH0b5Fjgc5WN9i6+46KZPPSpV-JRQ@mail.gmail.com> <8490FC41-2696-4948-83A1-3931674183B0@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1302191317590.5054@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <3EBB0AF2-A114-4652-806B-C50DD8F9557D@inviqa.com> <CAPwsocECUoCp_joTsazyDK61tabPZ=yx+ffiYbigtyS3FH9zZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Short syntax for anonymous functions
From: mduarte@inviqa.com (Marcello Duarte)

On 19 Feb 2013, at 14:16, Leigh wrote:

>>=20
>>=20
>> I can understand that If you haven't tried to write a tool like
>> capistrano, rspec, chef, puppet, etc, etc in PHP you probably won't =
see
>> much value in implementing such things.
>>=20
>>=20
> Your RFC doesn't go to great lengths to explain the value either. =
Pretend
> the reader has no experience with any of those tools you mention, =
pretend
> the only language they know is PHP, please explain where the value for =
this
> syntax is in PHP?

Very good feedback. Very much appreciated. I will see if I can expand on =
what I have that. Thank you.

> I find the existing syntax easy to understand. I find the proposed =
syntax
> disproportionally difficult and unintuitive in relation to any benefit =
it
> is supposed to give.
>=20
>=20
>> What is superfluous for is useful for other users. It would be useful
>> building DSL. At my company we use loads of ruby tools for deploying,
>> provisioning, etc. just because of the DSL they provide. The array =
short
>> syntax was great news. Adding a short syntax for closures would make =
it
>> possible to write such scripts in PHP =96 where the syntax would not =
stand on
>> its way.
>>=20
>>=20
> <insert PHP is not Ruby rhetoric>
>=20
> If Ruby is the right tool for the job, and PHP is not the right tool =
for
> the job, the answer to which language to use seems obvious right?

I find that more and more my developers have to learn ruby just to be =
able to work in our projects. We are one of the largest PHP shops in =
Europe and even the proprietary tools we are writing for DevOps stuff we =
are writing in Ruby. This small syntax arrangement would make it =
possible to write DSLs in PHP. The result is that I can have my PHP =
developers focusing on one language only and get the job done. The =
problem of the web is a bit more complex now, if you look on all you =
need to develop and deploy a large PHP application.

> I disagree wholeheartedly that this proposed syntax would make code in =
any
> way more readable, or maintainable.

Please understand that there is a difference between code you write and =
other people maintain, and code you write for other people to use. The =
purpose of this feature is focused on the later, to allow the =
construction of DSLs, so users of your code can focus on the task at =
hand.

--
Marcello Duarte=