Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95155
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5d38c41d-f189-56d2-be58-d60be3fd1bd9@gmail.com>
References: <CABdc3WpGQp+ZA6qSQs-ap5VHntH9tzDQOx333eiobsGxYs=DFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMUwpuQ9ZUdfziCXQAxuS3Drmh2vPSOkpvXf7cOg0xbdNEgD=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d1abf6e8-4949-6239-2664-a39d956fab14@gmail.com> <f9eb5b0a-1031-ed08-08f3-c67be514436c@fleshgrinder.com>
 <11f9c899-77b4-da50-f0f7-dc2d16b1829c@gmail.com> <CAFp73Xv=J+L6kS7j4ebLD_Rk5_kj2tb7QQacv6u3QnYr7-j5_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <431d5b9c-15ef-9af8-7a55-b776b2dd22ad@gmail.com> <CAFp73XvZirJgHtBmVpD8KDJL=XiAQFC8-Zvu0zQt5raTJzckkA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5d38c41d-f189-56d2-be58-d60be3fd1bd9@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 00:40:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CADyq6sJHhPgt1Ze2saaSgcfht4j4NTWH7T+rxcvH2XQnFnj_Bw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>, Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11442a6a1a2712053a0fcff5
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Namespaces internal refactoring
From: ocramius@gmail.com (Marco Pivetta)

--001a11442a6a1a2712053a0fcff5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hey Stas

On 15 Aug 2016 00:35, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> > A realization that needs to be made is that beginners would be using
> > libraries that requires to make valid restrictions, preventing those
> > beginners to mess up with code they shouldn't. So even if the use case
> > is only valid for 0.01% of code producers, it might be valid for 20%+ of
> > consumers.
>
> I don't think PHP needs more bondage-and-discipline. If beginners "mess
> up with code they shouldn't" that is usually, in my experience, a sign
> of library authors not serving their use case well, and not implementing
> functionality that they need. Either because they didn't know, or
> because their opinion about user's needs differs from user's opinion
> about their needs. In this case, I'm on the user's side. Hacker's ethos
> is doing things other people think can't be done.

*You* don't think so, but this happened many times also with non-beginners
(what Guilherme was talking about).
Conventions are not sufficient to keep a codebase consistent and safe:
explicit rules do that.

--001a11442a6a1a2712053a0fcff5--