Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:82070
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-32DCE87E-CAD9-427C-BBBC-FA247FEA2B01
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <CAMc0WS6+1Y-5yJW2s=mW+ynS6tN8M5iEaXe10MWnLrL0_dZUMg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:31:50 -0800
Cc: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, PHP Internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <6CE39098-883F-4494-9553-7BE83B2237E2@zend.com>
References: <8703B53E-2C4A-4AC6-95C4-D4F19C6D5221@ajf.me> <D5E65B07-2366-4A14-97BF-780267200717@zend.com> <DFBE8CD2-F740-4399-A44E-7AC0625ECEA2@ajf.me> <CAN383GD6K8YBnvZDyq4STgCAyQA_PUdJeFdXhgw_v7XezALkFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMc0WS6+1Y-5yJW2s=mW+ynS6tN8M5iEaXe10MWnLrL0_dZUMg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stelian Mocanita <stelianm@php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Scalar Type Hints
From: andi@zend.com (Andi Gutmans)

--Apple-Mail-32DCE87E-CAD9-427C-BBBC-FA247FEA2B01
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> On Feb 6, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Stelian Mocanita <stelianm@php.net> wrote:
>=20
> Sending people who want to have more structure in the language to Java
> is downright bad, not to mention that it psounds completely dictatorial. I=
=20
> would just put that in the next Zend newsletter to make it clear for your=20=

> customers that there is a saner option.
>=20

Oh come on. I was kidding. I will remember for next time this list has no se=
nse of humor.=20

And just for the record this is not a zend thing. Four zenders voted based o=
n their own beliefs - three votes were no and one was yes. So diversity here=
 too plus a small minority of total voters who can't really move the needle m=
uch.=20

Let's keep the conversation pragmatic. I will try and refrain from any humor=
.=20

Andi

> Stelian
>=20
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
>> The folks who really want all this great strict typing should head over t=
o
>> Oracle.com and download free open-source Java? I hear it's got a lot of
>> strict typing features in it. Only downside is that it'll take them 10x
>> longer to complete their projects. OK sorry. Had to say that :) I realize=

>> it's not the same...
>>=20
>> Andrea, while I don't agree with what you say I accept it. *But* exactly
>> for the reasons you state (the big divide) we should also have a weak typ=
e
>> hinting option to vote for in parallel. If you feel morally unable to do
>> that then I can copy your work and just have another RFC running in
>> parallel but I think that would do a disservice to the good work you've
>> done.
>>=20
>> Andi
>>=20
>>=20
>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me> wrote:
>>=20
>> > Hi Andi,
>> >
>> > > On 5 Feb 2015, at 23:22, Andi Gutmans <andi@zend.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I have to say I=E2=80=99m pretty disappointed at the opening of the v=
ote.
>> > > We had a pretty good RFC (thank you) for weak type hinting which was
>> > aligned with the spirit of PHP and everyone was able to rally around it=
.
>> >
>> > This is far from true. Some people on internals were happy, but only so=
me,
>> > and everywhere outside internals I looked, the reception was far more
>> > negative.
>> >
>> > > This has now been morphed into something very hard to swallow and IMO=

>> > having such a declare(=E2=80=A6) syntax will be ridiculed by the broade=
r app dev
>> > community until the end of time=E2=80=A6
>> >
>> > Nobody mocks Perl or JS for use strict.
>> >
>> > > But even that syntax aside (it=E2=80=99s only syntax after all), I th=
ink we lost
>> > the ability to reach consensus on something so important to everyone wh=
ich
>> > we haven=E2=80=99t been able to come to agreement on for over 10 years.=
 Finally it
>> > was there, in reach and you made a 180 degree turn.
>> >
>> > =E2=80=9CConsensus=E2=80=9D is exaggerated. There was no consensus and t=
o claim there was
>> > is to ignore the reality that the PHP community is divided over this is=
sue.
>> > I=E2=80=99d love to say that everyone loves weak type hints and if that=
 version had
>> > passed we=E2=80=99d all be dancing around happy holding hands, but the r=
eception
>> > was not uniformly positive, not even close, and that=E2=80=99s just on i=
nternals.
>> >
>> > > I think it=E2=80=99d be so much easier for us to implement weak type h=
inting.
>> > Have everyone rally around it. Be happy and then learn and see whether a=
n
>> > additional mechanism is really necessary.
>> >
>> > Who=E2=80=99d be happy? I realise you and Zeev are big fans of weak typ=
es, as are
>> > many others, but there are also a lot of PHP developers who vehemently
>> > disagree with you.
>> >
>> > > We could even add an E_STRICT_TYPES error_reporting flag to help folk=
s
>> > =E2=80=9Cdebug=E2=80=9D their code if they so wish to see if there are a=
ny hotspots in
>> > their code they may want to take a look at - again not necessarily an e=
rror
>> > but maybe a debugging tool.
>> >
>> > Global error handlers affect all code the interpreter runs, which is wh=
y
>> > we=E2=80=99ve looked down on them in recent times.
>> >
>> > > But net, net - why not just implement the thing everyone can agree on=
.
>> >
>> > Everyone doesn=E2=80=99t agree on it.
>> >
>> > If everyone did agree on it, v0.1 of the RFC would have been the one th=
at
>> > went to vote.
>> >
>> > > Have something really good in the spirit of the PHP Language for PHP 7=

>> > and learn how people leverage that=E2=80=A6 The reality is that for the=
 majority of
>> > the Web community =E2=80=9C1=E2=80=9D coming in from HTTP should be acc=
epted as a 1. Period.
>> >
>> > It=E2=80=99s very well and good you claiming that the =E2=80=9Cmajority=
=E2=80=9D agree, but this
>> > does not match my experiences. The PHP community is not a single,
>> > homogenous entity. It is very difficult to judge.
>> >
>> > > I voted =E2=80=9Cno=E2=80=9D but I will vote =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80=9D fo=
r the competing RFC which is 80% of
>> > your RFC. Why are we not given that option??????
>> >
>> > Because I cannot in good conscience push through something in the name o=
f
>> > =E2=80=9Cconsensus=E2=80=9D which does not even approach it.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrea Faulds
>> > http://ajf.me/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>=20

--Apple-Mail-32DCE87E-CAD9-427C-BBBC-FA247FEA2B01--