Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:68895 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 88719 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2013 09:35:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Sep 2013 09:35:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=nikita.ppv@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=nikita.ppv@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: nikita.ppv@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.219.53 mail-oa0-f53.google.com Received: from [209.85.219.53] ([209.85.219.53:34029] helo=mail-oa0-f53.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id E1/FA-01925-34058225 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 05:34:59 -0400 Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id k18so1935771oag.12 for ; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 02:34:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Bb8+hBx8ffdH4GIt+Phtrn37Vpbyd9oP/Zl4pQlbTq8=; b=JzH0NMEmd1Sw3ETWDfiwSaESNgBDyEiYEzmvmboPF4+GO7QVr1/elCqsGz7gwQJnAi 8eHXRuGT7uikuB1aMWYW269dG7HHlivSOM6TwEbQPcjdLOKjrhiSkkjlfzNWgmOBXy4p Uoe/yRoL/TX+iarGEgtx5nbLw5dsavenoOVuFiBQ9+C2yO93Hn3dA/aXdeGpnOJfJALf p06Tlk/iWLsvX9AUBKGWVY/dDIrKNvNHHMTmS3ubbUB9GaMD2IeDr01cBC0/08aD9svJ PQGREgRv6YkctReHb4R3UQAXAnpCmi+1RyjxFkcoVcUOXXfoABWhP5Camy1Mi9Rj7QXU S1kg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.138.136 with SMTP id qq8mr570153oeb.59.1378373696843; Thu, 05 Sep 2013 02:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.98.8 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Sep 2013 02:34:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5220D212.3010101@sugarcrm.com> <61FCD6C4A31248078FEAD2BA73D7CD44@gmail.com> <7AF31CC1D1554454AC95AE758D23E92E@gmail.com> <52243F6C.7070806@sugarcrm.com> <5224EEEF.3070204@sugarcrm.com> <52250E8F.5010805@sugarcrm.com> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:34:56 +0200 Message-ID: To: Pierre Joye Cc: Sebastian Krebs , Levi Morrison , Stas Malyshev , Anthony Ferrara , Nicolas Grekas , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b41ccf891773c04e59fa213 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Function autoloading From: nikita.ppv@gmail.com (Nikita Popov) --047d7b41ccf891773c04e59fa213 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs > wrote: > > >> > That being said, there is always a point in a RFC discussion where > >> > there is nothing left to discuss or argue about, we are so far with > >> > this one. > >> > >> > >> We've been at this point for a while; no new arguments have been raised > >> despite several people asking to bring it back in focus. > > I totally understand your view on how such discussions go. However it > was (for what I read) about technical issues and the tones were > correct, could have been more diplomatic but that's fine imho. I am > not sure how to solve this problem as we have to discuss things deeply > and be sure that active core developers actually understand all the > impact of a given proposal will have, that's a must. > I don't think this discussion was about technical issues. Let me summarize the main discussion points: * "This will make function calls slower!". Many complaints about this change hurting performance, even though it was pointed out early on (and detailed in the RFC) that this is not true. * "Will you put every function in it's own file?!". This has been repeated *a lot* in this thread, even though again it has been pointed out early that there are more reasonable autoloading schemes for functions (e.g. namespace-to-file) * "Just use static methods instead". I don't need to comment on the absurdity of this statement. * "Which function is autoloaded?" Is the namespaced version or the global fallback loaded? Of these, only the last point has been of any benefit to this discussion. There has also been some minor discussion regarding the API, which is also relevant. But why does 80% of this thread deal with performance (known incorrect assumption), unreasonable suggestions of function-to-file mappings (even though alternatives are known) and suggestions to just not use functions? It's really hard to fish out the 10 relevant mails in a discussion spanning 70 in total. > Sadly Anthony took this whole thing way too personally and is leaving > php.net, I'm not sure it is a definitive choice but it is a bad move, > in many ways and for both php.net and himself. It is very common that > not everyone agree with a proposal, or do not see the needs of it, > trying to understand its impact or the reasoning behind it. If > everyone begins to leave as soon as it happens, OSS would die, right > now. > I'm pretty sure that Anthony's reaction is not directly related to this particular thread - rather it is an accumulation of the very same kind of discussion we have on nearly every RFC. Discussion is always very circular, covering issues that have already been addressed (usually even written down in the RFCs). Typically this kind of pointless discussion happens between just three or so people and fills the largest part of the thread. Stas is usually one of those "three" people, though of course I will not imply causation from correlation. Nikita --047d7b41ccf891773c04e59fa213--