Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88106
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.51 as permitted sender)
To: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>
References: <BLU436-SMTP13020F8CE8795C628BDC665E26B0@phx.gbl>
 <61.90.26858.306BCE55@pb1.pair.com> <55ED636D.8010808@gmail.com>
 <CAAyV7nFE6qyj0FH7VwF+v0_sF6LnXcnoyt+uEOMYSgAD9yu94Q@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Message-ID: <55EDDD97.4010608@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 11:55:19 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAyV7nFE6qyj0FH7VwF+v0_sF6LnXcnoyt+uEOMYSgAD9yu94Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Short Closures
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> Being completely fair, doesn't this actually make HackLang a great
> test-bed for PHP features? If they implement something, and people

I'm not sure how it can be a testbed for *PHP* features, if they develop
them with next to no input from PHP community. At least as far as I
know, maybe I don't know something?

> hate it/it sucks, boom. But if people love it, it's a no brainer for
> us to "steal".

Unless I'm missing something, "people" here are mostly those that work
for Facebook, which, while a sizeable number, is not exactly the whole
PHP community. And I'm not sure even how would we know whether Facebook
developers like it or not - is there some process of evaluating
features? Some kind of community discussion process, voting, feedback
channels that we can observe and learn what people think? What one does
if she works for Facebook and hates how Hack behaves - what is the
feedback system, how it works? I honestly have no idea.

> The one thing I think we absolutely MUST avoid is changing behaviour
> slightly but keeping same syntax.

I agree here that if you already borrow syntax, then using different
semantics makes little sense. That said, I see no reason to borrow
syntax just because Hack does it. If we have a number of languages doing
it the same way - that's fine, it relies on existing mindshare, that's
useful. But otherwise, if we consider borrowing syntax and having to be
constrained by implied semantics and not borrowing syntax and be free to
develop semantics that suits us the most - I'd rather choose not
borrowing. Not because of obsessive desire to be different, but because
of the freedom of the implied constraints. Of course, if after
consideration it turns out the Hack semantics is exactly what we want,
then the same syntax would be a boon.

> a disproportionate influence on PHP". They are not being given a blank
> check, no more than any other contributor is. But we also shouldn't be

The status of "PHP feature testbed" that you are proposing is way more
than any other contributor gets. Which is fine, but not if we run of
danger of dismissing important concerns because "well, Hack did it this
way so it's decided". That is what I'd very much like to avoid.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com