Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75825
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.216.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0587d9fc9ab9ac41fcbfdb499c4e6ab8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b39ebab3d19d76cda9bafa25919c0e67@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXahqscNFe5Dy7Lc6NcjZDfw+tkNBtM8Z8p-+n7anq8gew@mail.gmail.com>
	<df087915cfde8c749fd9551953a3ca40@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7jd6D=sP6MaAD4tK-F0SRXpWj3_bzie9y5ZqeL-Gi3cA@mail.gmail.com>
	<aa6e605aa20062ea943b550d342ae222@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH-PCH7jHQK4w3cqqf3S+HrxbjY_jHNCUJY5OpB6oH7VNQJn=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<-6299216022086038902@unknownmsgid>
	<CAH-PCH4pxuWDk7sFudHix_OeVVfusUYZ6i89kKCOaGSSJNFBeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABBJUpe1DwZL30J3w1csmuFzGZJ01gQakHMSN7MtdCN+xLXekA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7AsGvioOEebZa0o+peZZtsEVp5NAVnFnU+m-H+iWzTVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+9eiLu+UD91AMoThBOqBHyeZqbwBvFbQm8F+UrP8uBkw9sJJQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<53CE0EAE.8060602@lsces.co.uk>
	<0587d9fc9ab9ac41fcbfdb499c4e6ab8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:45:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7Hq1ErPyxJr9ZC2jNisdz4uSeOgyf0LQ5D1hXNVtAexA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>
Cc: Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com> wrote:

>   I stand by my statement that I'm
> sure a great deal of users (my guesstimate - the majority) would happily
> upgrade to PHP.NEXT even if the huge performance gains were the only thing
> there.

I fully agree with you about breakages. It should be carefully for
painful areas (like what is done in the variable syntax RFC) but big
breaks should be avoided.

However I disagree with your statement about what users expect for
next. It is obvious that users are happy to see PHP performing better,
there is no need to do a study to realize that. On the other hand,
performance is not their higher priorities for the next major version.
I spoke to many big php users, UG, etc in the last months and the
expectations go way beyond performance. Internals code cleanup is very
very important point (more and more custom extensions are being
internally developed, be OSS or not), our APIs and implemenation are a
mess, we all know that. A cleanup is long due, since the php 4 to 5
move. Back then you, along other, rejected many of these cleanup
arguing that it could be done later. Without blaming any of us, we see
now that we never do such things "later".

The other important parts are things like type hinting for scalar, to
match the class type hinting, getter/setter (100% positive feedback to
do what we proposed in the related RFC), object like methods for
array/string, keeping BC with the existing APIs but providing cleaner
userfriendlier APIs, etc. It is basically what we can find in the
ideas page about php6, a page I created months ago and began to
discuss. These discussions happened here, publically, and you
(phpng's) never replied to any of them. This is what we should discuss
now, not tomorrow, not when phpng is merged (if it ever happens). This
is what allows us to do an informed guess for a possible release cycle
for php-next. I will post a proposal for a timetable, something that
could fit for both sides. Do not expect it to match your one year
requirement, but it won't be three years either.

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org