Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:73589
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain m.gmane.org designates 80.91.229.3 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:22:22 +0100
Lines: 186
Message-ID: <lhl1gd$h43$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <533C0713.9070106@eliw.com> <CAF+90c9xc1cd8MFMmvj+VC_Q8gYms+vz+zRGjMV2aWPjV6svxw@mail.gmail.com> <533C5A7D.8020405@eliw.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------050800060502020602040507"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
In-Reply-To: <533C5A7D.8020405@eliw.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] About PHP6 ...
From: xfsgpr@hotmail.com (Good Guy)

--------------050800060502020602040507
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 02/04/2014 19:44, Eli wrote:
> On 4/2/14, 1:57 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Eli <eli@eliw.com 
>> <mailto:eli@eliw.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hello everyone.  I've been hitting a lot of conferences recently, and
>>     found myself having the same discussion with multiple members of the
>>     community.  And many of them have 'heavily encouraged me' to
>>     bring this
>>     discussion up here.  And Julien's recent PHP6 email, reminded me
>>     that I
>>     hadn't done so.
>>
>>     The short form is:
>>
>>     We should not name the next version of PHP: PHP6, for 2 reasons:
>>         1. It will cause confusion in those least able to adapt
>>         2. It costs us nothing, hurts us in no way, to name it
>>     something else
>>
>>
>> There is potential for confusion regardless of what we do. If it's 
>> PHP 6, we get conflicts with existing literature. If it's PHP 7, this 
>> will lead to confusion about a version number being skipped. (Which 
>> is imho a pretty big wtf moment.)
>>
>> I find it quite ridiculous to break our versioning scheme over this 
>> kind of nonesense.
>
> Nikita, thank you for your feedback.  I would like to point out a 
> major difference between these levels of confusion here:
>
> 1. We name it PHP6, people who try to find information on PHP6, find 
> old books and old articles, read them, think they are accurate, learn 
> incorrect/wrong information, and get extremely frustrated when nothing 
> they are trying to do works.  They will be taught bad information.  
> Things will not work.  Worst case, they give up on PHP completely 
> because of it.
>

That is not our problem.  People buying books are not stupid.  They know 
that authors write books in advance of products being released.
> 2. We name it PHP7, A majority of the 'non-connected' just see the 
> latest version and upgrade.  The majority of the connected, 
> understand.  Then there are some people go: "huh?  what happened to 
> PHP6", so they google, and will find the story.   At no point does 
> anyone who is attempting to learn, get taught incorrect material.
>

You are going to drive away the authors for this approach.  They need to 
know what the next product is to write about it.  Why do you want to 
antagonize them?

> I would much rather have a few people go 'huh?  What happened to 6'.  
> ... Then have people paying money for books, supporting authors who 
> 'jumped the gun', for ancient information that is incorrect.
>

It doesn't matter when people support the authors or authors jump the 
gun.  That is life in this world..



-- 
Good Guy
Website: http://mytaxsite.co.uk
Website: http://html-css.co.uk
Email: http://mytaxsite.co.uk/contact-us


--------------050800060502020602040507--