Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:72957 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 75419 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2014 01:06:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Mar 2014 01:06:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=johannes@schlueters.de; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=johannes@schlueters.de; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain schlueters.de from 217.114.215.10 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: johannes@schlueters.de X-Host-Fingerprint: 217.114.215.10 mail.experimentalworks.net Received: from [217.114.215.10] ([217.114.215.10:48461] helo=mail.experimentalworks.net) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 91/E0-03343-EF9C7135 for ; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 20:06:07 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.31] (ppp-93-104-14-105.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.14.105]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: johannes@schlueters.de) by mail.experimentalworks.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E480463FD; Thu, 6 Mar 2014 02:06:48 +0100 (CET) To: Maxime Veber Cc: Pierre Joye , Rasmus Lerdorf , Julien Pauli , PHP Internals In-Reply-To: References: <53176168.50305@lerdorf.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 02:05:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1394067953.24706.30.camel@guybrush> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP6 thoughts about Engine changes From: johannes@schlueters.de (Johannes =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Schl=FCter?=) On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 21:59 +0100, Maxime Veber wrote: > Hello, > > I totally love the ideas about BC and cleaning everything. That's what PHP > need and deserve. I assume you are talking about userspae APIs, the often quoted needle vs haystack etc. If people think this is needed it is trivial to provide aliases and "fixed" versions for these from an extension (and/or userspace lib). As nobody has I assume that's more talk than need and people got accustomed easily. > Can you be more specific about what you want to change in "Cleanup API and > dead code" part ? The mail was about API implementation where there are grown APIs where parts might not be needed anymore. > And na na, it's not only for an hypotetic php7 version. We change things or > we do not change ! > After all, php move great with minor releases... ! There are two requirements * people who do * thought about backwards compatibility The first item is hard, the number of people actually doing cleanup tasks is a small fraction of our relatively small contributor base. So going by Julien's list, the expected timeframe and the available work power doing all those things is almost impossible. Secondly, breaking too much at once is not an option. "Compatibility is a feature". for one there is lots of legacy code and knowledge, secondly it tells users that they can invest in PHP and won't get too much update pain later. See also the "success" of either Python 3 or Perl 6 which "fixed" too many things giving them low adoption. This by no means we shouldn't fix and improve things but that's a continuous process. (my favorite example: register_globals took literally 10 years from us starting to promote alternatives till we removed the option) > If we want to change, let's to what have to be done *now* ! We are in constant change. There is barely a language as commonly used as PHP which changes so rapidly. johannes