Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75827 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 47959 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2014 09:32:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 Jul 2014 09:32:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.52 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.52 mail-qg0-f52.google.com Received: from [209.85.192.52] ([209.85.192.52:60610] helo=mail-qg0-f52.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 24/3A-14611-0BF2EC35 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 05:32:32 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id f51so6487489qge.25 for ; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:32:29 -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=mtZi62cGgX6WOtOZIhTkfnyi8H2DF+FAQCd/fDZ/a7M=; b=wrS/Z4QnrnElQ4UgqbBCrQzNq5bBiyoEghAy87zCPkGuwVv6kQF5brESUicJpY/QQw CaxdXss0aknHjvpZMoHOU+7o/AWgHmsPxoOfKRFlhfl3abB8pmIgNWR01LSDSBkPiZDo vgzOjC8LTpPx9zNl41KHwua1Uh37XpGv+0Xp/x3D4bgmJIlYikmG/IOWuirXuQufa33I Wv6g12nSSMGQCmRvxMtrfdY3k+lN3Gf4FjL8PTnIZxhfTnEzte26NJfyx5lmgpBF1NUu 7ak06+B5Znl727vrDqIFR7gTdCDr6kGxr0fdI13jkMyr8IKv4mCy/0x4WbZ9nqqcgZrD MMdQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.87.75 with SMTP id q69mr49258968qgd.94.1406021549458; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.28.139 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 02:32:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <-6299216022086038902@unknownmsgid> <53CE0EAE.8060602@lsces.co.uk> <0587d9fc9ab9ac41fcbfdb499c4e6ab8@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:32:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Eberlei Cc: Zeev Suraski , Lester Caine , PHP internals Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] RFC: Move phpng to master From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye) On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei wrote: > This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch. Since > the branch is pulic on Github, how is development secret? Benjamin, please check the background before replying. 80% of phpng development has been done secretly, before it was even announced. This development happened while we were discussing, collaborating, working on what will be php-next, including the long due 64bit patch. These actions and discussion have done without any feedback from any of the phpng developers. I can't blame them for not talking about phpng, but to have signed a NDA to do work on PHP itself. > With Zend, Nikita > and laurence putting so much time into this, I fail to see how it would work > to notify everyone of all the changes they are doing. As with every big > project you have to put time into following its progress. I agree though > that Zend (Zeev, Dimitry) could improve the RFC with a little more details, > its focussing a lot on performance. A little? There is no details, there is no doc, there is nothing but a huge set of patches. > As i understood Nikita and laurence they are already improving it based on > the first prototype from month ago. Honestly, if Nikita says converting his > extensions improved the API a lot then this is a good sign for me already. It does not improve anything from an extension developer point of view, or very little. On the other APIs are more dangerous, confusing and inconsistent. >> >> >> 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. > > > I think internal refactoring is exactly the reason to move from 5 to 6/7 and > not necessarily end user facing changes. i wouldn't mind starting type > hinting, getter/setter or any other discussion again once a 6.0/7.0 is out. > This has worked for PHP since 5.3, 5.4, 5.5. Again once it is out? In which world do you live? that will never happen. We have an opportunity now to do it, let do it. Also I am very surprised to read that from you, I thought you were a strong supporter of these features, or annotations. > I'd rather just take the performance gains, given that PHP as a language > just works(tm), additional features are nice, but not having them is not a > show stopper and shouldn't block something as big as phpng. It is. And performance is by no mean the main PHP problem, despite HHVM. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org