Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:92317
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain zend.com designates 157.56.111.105 as permitted sender)
To: Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com>
CC: "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Thread-Topic: [PHP-DEV] Re: Improving PHP's type system
Thread-Index: AQHRlaUHEc+doe0x5E+u9VwQHuu4UJ+IRQcAgAANKICAAAFxgIAABh6AgAANpACAACnEH4AAm82AgAC9A4A=
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:51:42 +0000
Message-ID: <BY2PR02MB29896954C1D57A359C31029AC970@BY2PR02MB298.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAFMT4Nq+VdfYS+eKbdbmPr92-X1QYCE2eOtPGo6Zu1qgAOGkhA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFMT4Nq=QPN9fOMtKa7GDDkf-AECAXjN9WRtn84nUjtKK-zD7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <570E99AC.3090804@fleshgrinder.com>
 <CAFMT4Nq7JV=iv=_AKjez+B8JxZ+rucD4LkEJgHuUg15o7r2hMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <570EA5EB.8090501@fleshgrinder.com>
 <570EAB0D.6080706@gmail.com>,<570EB67E.8010908@garfieldtech.com>
 <5B147E88-CC0A-4CBC-A49D-C7FE3BF557C0@zend.com>
 <6F.C3.12455.94C5F075@pb1.pair.com>
In-Reply-To: <6F.C3.12455.94C5F075@pb1.pair.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Apr 2016 20:51:42.7652
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 32210298-c08b-4829-8097-6b12c025a892
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR02MB300
Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: Improving PHP's type system
From: zeev@zend.com (Zeev Suraski)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Marston [mailto:TonyMarston@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:01 PM
> To: internals@lists.php.net
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Improving PHP's type system
>=20
> "Zeev Suraski"  wrote in message
> news:5B147E88-CC0A-4CBC-A49D-C7FE3BF557C0@zend.com...
> >
> >
> >> On 14 ????? 2016, at 7:14, Larry Garfield <larry@garfieldtech.com> wro=
te:
> >>
> >>> On 4/13/16 3:24 PM, Stanislav Malyshev wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>>> May I suggest you the following article (more of a starting point
> >>>> into Ceylon actually) regarding this topic:
> >>> There was a time where PHP was considered a good beginner's language.
> >>> Now it seems we want to pivot and target category theory PhDs instead=
?
> >>> :)
> >>
> >> A language that is usable primarily by beginners will only be useful
> >> for beginners.  Non-beginners will shun it, or simply grow out of it
> >> and leave.
> >>
> >> A language that is usable only by PhDs will be useful only for PhDs.
> >> Beginners won't be able to comprehend it.
> >>
> >> A language that is usable by both beginners and PhDs, and can scale a
> >> user from beginner to PhD within the same language, will be used by bo=
th.
> >>
> >> Doing that is really hard. And really awesome. And the direction PHP
> >> has been trending in recent years is in that direction.  Which is
> >> pretty danged awesome. :-)
> >
> >I would argue that PHP was already doing that almost since inception.
> >I think we have ample evidence that we've been seeing a lot of
> >different types of usage - both beginners' and ultra advanced going on
> >in PHP for decades.
> >I would also argue that in recent years, the trending direction has
> >been focusing on the "PhDs", while neglecting the simplicity seekers
> >(which I wouldn't necessarily call beginners).  Making PHP more and
> >more about being like yet-another-language, as opposed to one that
> >tries to come up with creative, simplified ways of solving problems.
> >Last, I'd argue that a language that tries to be everything for
> >everybody ends up being the "everything's and the kitchen sink", rather
> >than somethings that is truly suitable for everyone.
> >
> >We also seemed to have dumped some of our fundamental working
> >assumptions - that have made PHP extremely successful to begin with:
> >
> >- Emphasis on simplicity
> >- Adding optional features makes the language more complex regardless
> >of whether everyone uses them or not
> >
> >It does seem as if we're trying to replicate other languages,
> >relentlessly trying to "fix" PHP, which has been and still is one of
> >the most successful languages out there - typically a lot more so than
> >the languages we're trying to replicate.
> >
> >Zeev
>=20
> I agree with Zeev 100%. There are too many people out there who are tryin=
g
> to make the language more complicated than it need be just to prove how
> clever they are. The aim of any language should be to enable programmers =
to
> do complicated things in a simple way, and not to do simple things in a
> complicated way.
>=20
> I have been programming for over 30 years, so in no way can I be classed =
as a
> newbie. PHP is my favourite language because of its simplicity. I started=
 with
> PHP 4, and although I have upgraded to PHP 5 I refuse to use any of the
> "clever" additions which have been made to PHP 5 simply because I can
> achieve what I need to achieve WITHOUT using any of those additions.
>=20
> I will not be making use of any changes that are made to the language in =
order
> to handle typed variables for the simple reason that PHP was specifically
> designed to be an untyped language, and in the 13+ years that I have been
> programming with PHP I have found that to be more of an advantage than a
> hindrance.


Tony,

I think this is taking the discussion a bit in the wrong direction.

I, for one, certainly don't think that our problem is people who want to pr=
ove how clever they are, and I do believe that people who are proposing add=
itions and improvements to the language are doing it because they think it'=
s a good thing.  That does not mean it is though.

I am also saying that generally speaking, most people who are on internals@=
 are biased through self-selection towards change.  People who are just hap=
py the way things are, are unlikely to be on internals and are unlikely to =
want to contribute.  Fixing bugs, meticulously optimizing performance while=
 maintaining compatibility, these things get a LOT less interest and aren't=
 main attraction points for joining internals.  Incidentally, they're also =
the things that the vast majority of users want the most.

As a whole, people don't realize that PHP does not need fixing.  I'm NOT sa=
ying it's perfect and that it cannot be improved - of course it can - but I=
 am saying that it's not broken;  In fact, it's remarkably successful the w=
ay it is, and in fact, we have no evidence that since the RFC process was e=
mbraced and language-level features started making their way into it on a m=
uch faster pace - anything changed for the better in terms of popularity.  =
People arguing to introduce radical changes to it (and making PHP a lot mor=
e of a typed language, optional or not, absolutely constitutes a radical ch=
ange) should realize that it's not risk-free, and given that they tend to b=
e advanced, top 5-10% coders - that they're catering not to just coders lik=
e them, but also the rest of the 90-95% of the world.

Introducing new syntax to PHP, with new semantics, adds a lot of cognitive =
load no matter how we spin it.  Given how easy it is now to propose an RFC,=
 and the general bias-for-change of internals, we're now doing this at a re=
markable pace, with very few checks and balances.  Every feature is evaluat=
ed context-free, on whether it's useful in some cases yes/no, and without t=
aking into account in any way that 'less is more'.  Just see how much discu=
ssion we're seeing here about open questions in this typing discussion.  Wh=
atever decision we take in each and every one of these discussions - means =
added cognitive load, as by definition that decision wasn't an intuitive on=
e, but one that required much discussion, debate and sometimes compromise i=
n order to reach.

Zeev