Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:69025
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain oracle.com designates 156.151.31.81 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <52308587.1040802@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 08:00:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <CAAyV7nFRfuu0dGnu0FV1ehkqwQR6=dUFSHMP=6CJsAVWghCADg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOWwgpnm1KepENJ_+7hbwCvYzYbhgQ=xcLG7rxpLtuR8o-E52A@mail.gmail.com> <CAAyV7nH53sBKepCU0xwRuO=XwiaCqO_ZH+dkajDvb4ar2-WhPA@mail.gmail.com> <52243F6C.7070806@sugarcrm.com> <CAAyV7nHSsZ6s5MUFzcXR_K45XHDK34GPxwo5yv9koHdi0+LeoQ@mail.gmail.com> <5224EEEF.3070204@sugarcrm.com> <CAAyV7nFSB0V9jeQKR66PcTP+v3H5Np5Ctw_qAUgv2k0kmX=nWg@mail.gmail.com> <52250E8F.5010805@sugarcrm.com> <CAFMT4No5BOZ6uSDEcyWDHPHGk=FpzcqirOhMOMK=vxCrATBp7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU4ZpExm5f5ueshz2W=K+VnmWWmg+7n-V65FPGMFRffooQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMT4Nq4NVeJn1MqHnEO-yPKekwP5UfFVKYAUKkWZ4rGgjSHxQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALtuQzCwT1gYgQCPrNWod2BjMHxfSPzzL1-_hRetUEB+sQL=eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU67UOT+9_CsUgK+gruaj7GVcnU7gFY0_OysjEd5Kgisaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF+90c_5ZovL9ATmF098KqyeWxc=F5+MZMH2hH-gwk8xNLTcLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU7FkM0DnHObFg9NuQMdXs7zmtMjHnxf4d9SFbhK=cP3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU7FkM0DnHObFg9NuQMdXs7zmtMjHnxf4d9SFbhK=cP3Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Function autoloading
From: christopher.jones@oracle.com (Christopher Jones)



On 9/5/13 3:32 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Krebs <krebs.seb@gmail.com>
>>> 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.
>
> Right, it goes circular way too often. I see that in many other MLs. I
> however do not see it as a reason to leave, no matter how much it
> happens. I also see these questions, discussions or arguing session as
> technical matters, be semantic, common sense or anything else. It is
> all about being sure about what php will be after a given feature is
> added.
>
>> 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.
>
> I very much respect Stas, both for his constructive attitude and the
> insane amount of work he puts in PHP and the related projects. As
> anyone else, he is however a human, with needs to understand a
> specific point very clearly. I do not think there any evil or
> domination behavior here. About the N people trying to control
> everything, that's why we have RFCs. Maybe we should scan discussions
> more frequently and stop them when it goes circular, ask to update the
> RFC accordingly and move forward. This is something I tried to do.
> Sadly I was busy with other stuff in the last couple of months and was
> not able to follow each recent RFC discussions closely.
>
> Cheers,
>

I agree with Pierre on all his points in this mail.

(Note I haven't done more than skim the fuss around "the post I wish I
didn't have to read" so I won't comment further, nor wish my thoughts
to be extrapolated in any related direction).

Chris

-- 
christopher.jones@oracle.com  http://twitter.com/ghrd
Free PHP & Oracle book:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/php/underground-php-oracle-manual-098250.html