Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:80580
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.218.42 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
In-Reply-To: <85F6139E-6332-4645-91B8-C852B07EA62A@ajf.me>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:03:08 -0800
Cc: Zeev Suraski <zeev@zend.com>,
 RQuadling@gmail.com,
 Leigh <leight@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <12433808-9D62-48D3-B66E-74572C61BF68@zend.com>
References: <8DCD1B72-C81D-499E-B455-E4A042CD76E6@ajf.me> <CAPwsocGyv7dp8n=_E1QfrXRSbYZXcHZAPk5F=hDLB070i=SCGA@mail.gmail.com> <4E2073DE-0951-498C-97BB-DDAC094F11FA@ajf.me> <9a033dd1f223f854e760924d118ab812@mail.gmail.com> <CAKUjMCU-57cDpG5ZbDGv10dSqx=Ey40D-WbKxKSnC6oSYOfLWw@mail.gmail.com> <2ae0164cb9b9bf1c974d7a3c60af0466@mail.gmail.com> <F3BC55CD-38CD-42B7-AE0B-A6D34E3D3875@ajf.me> <6105ea99002e634373c09685310e26a6@mail.gmail.com> <D39D18B9-A9E5-430E-B00A-E0DE03DAFE8C@ajf.me> <e131f1aaf3ae0491f958171df36211f5@mail.gmail.com> <85F6139E-6332-4645-91B8-C852B07EA62A@ajf.me>
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Scalar Type Hints v0.2
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

> On Jan 15, 2015, at 6:51 AM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> I=E2=80=99m not really sure this is true. I agree that strict types =
aren=E2=80=99t entirely in keeping with the =E2=80=9CPHP way=E2=80=9D. =
However, there are plenty of people who are against them not for that =
reason, but simply because they don=E2=80=99t work well for them. Plus, =
I=E2=80=99m not sure strict typing causes as much of a problem if it is =
off by default. Nobody is forced to use it, the language would stay =
beginner-friendly and weakly-typed. Indeed, strict type hints don=E2=80=99=
t stop PHP being weakly-typed. They just check types at function call =
boundaries. Think of it as a sanity check.
>=20
>=20
> Let=E2=80=99s have a look. =46rom a quick skim over the thread for =
v0.1:
>=20
> * In favour of weak types (or the RFC anyway): Adam, Stas, yourself, =
Jordi, Pierre,
> * Against, in favour of strict types: Maxime, Nikita, Markus, Marco, =
Leigh, Levi, Sven(?)
> * In favour of strict types, not against weak types as compromise: =
Matthew
> * Somewhat in favour: Sebastian
> * In favour of allowing both approaches: Marcio, Thomas, Marco
>=20
> I apologise if I am misrepresenting anyone=E2=80=99s position.
>=20
> This is unlikely to be super-representative of the PHP community. =
However, I=E2=80=99m not sure I=E2=80=99d say =E2=80=9Coverwhelmingly =
positive=E2=80=9D. It can be easy to get confirmation bias when reading =
RFC threads.
>=20
> It is very clear to me that a lot of people would like strict types, =
and some people would like weak types. As to their relative numbers, I =
cannot say.
>=20
> I don=E2=80=99t think it=E2=80=99s really fair to cover only the use =
case of one half of the PHP community. The other half counts too. This =
is a rather divisive issue.

Man, oh man. I thought we finally had a proposal with 0.1 that everyone =
could give a thumbs up to and move forward. One that enables stronger =
type stability (for those who want it) and even can allow for =
under-the-hood optimizations.

I really think we took a step back with 0.2. I think a super strict =
approach is really against what PHP is about.
And a configuration option that significantly impacts how the language =
behaves is probably the worst thing we could do. I remember I bumped =
into something like that with Visual Basic and expression short =
circuiting (yes the first version didn=E2=80=99t have that and it became =
a configuration option). Completely horrible and unmaintainable.

We cannot have a configuration option that changes the core language =
behavior. That is a no-no and there=E2=80=99s a good reason why =
languages stay away from that.

And definitely disappointed that we took a step back after it seemed we =
could finally come to an agreement on this agonizing topic.

Andi=