Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99347
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <F9.E2.12681.8AEC3395@pb1.pair.com>
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <9dffe898-e550-c6d6-46bd-86dcf74735ea@fleshgrinder.com> <CA+kxMuRoMvy6vB0YKd6Ejqu8AsKxrO2x6F9y5i9+cxfJSJ-ihg@mail.gmail.com> <A4.5C.12681.20F62395@pb1.pair.com> <op.y09fz0b4twp9n2@charlie>
In-Reply-To: <op.y09fz0b4twp9n2@charlie>
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 10:10:59 +0100
Lines: 6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Class Naming in Core
From: TonyMarston@hotmail.com ("Tony Marston")

""Steven Hilder""  wrote in message news:op.y09fz0b4twp9n2@charlie...
>
>Tony,
>
>On 30 May 2017 11:21:38 +0300, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
>> they should not be forced to change just because some nerd has made a
>> unilateral decision which is way above his pay grade
>
>On 30 May 2017 16:18:21 +0300, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
>> just because someone that there should now be a standard. Who gives this
>> "someone" the right to demand a change in the name of consistency
>
>On 31 May 2017 12:19:59 +0300, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
>> IMHO it is wrong for someone new to the project to demand that there be a
>> standard, one of his choosing, and that all existing code be modified to
>> conform to that standard.
>
>On 02 Jun 2017 10:56:57 +0300, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
>> I object to some young nerd arriving on the scene and proclaiming to the 
>> world
>> that he has decided to change the "standards" and demand that everyone 
>> follow.
>> Who gave him the right to change the standards?the
>
>On 03 Jun 2017 11:10:39 +0300, Tony Marston <TonyMarston@hotmail.com> 
>wrote:
>> That strikes me as being dictatorial and authoritarian
>
>You're correct that nothing gives any one person the right to demand a 
>change to
>naming conventions or any other element of PHP - hence why nobody here is 
>making
>any such demands or proclamations.
>
>However, what you seem not to recognise is that any person has the right to
>suggest or campaign for such a change, regardless of their age, experience
>level, pay grade, nerdiness or severity of OCD. To imply otherwise is 
>offensive.
>
>The purpose both of debating suggestions on this list and carrying out the 
>RFC
>process is to determine if the internals community can reach a consensus 
>on a
>proposal's viability for inclusion in PHP.
>
>Only if and when consensus is achieved will the change be implemented. 
>There are
>no unilateral decisions. To imply otherwise is to fundamentally 
>misunderstand
>how open-source collaboration works.
>
>Furthermore, there is absolutely no prerequisite that a standard must have 
>been
>in place since the project's inception for a proposal to be valid.

If there was never a standard to begin with then there should be proper 
justification for introducing one now, and I'm afraid that "to be 
consistent" is not a valid argument. What problems are caused by this 
inconsistency? What is the cost, both in core developer time and application 
developer time, to change it? If the benefits are smaller than the costs 
then can the change actually be justified?

>None of what I have written above should be news to you, and Rowan has 
>already
>clarified that you are not being forced or even asked to change any of 
>your own
>code. So why do you persist?

Because I have been using PHP since 2002, and have been following this group 
shortly after, and there is one pattern I have seen over and over again. 
After a change has been made in PHP core to enforce a "standard" for nothing 
more than "to be consistent", some bright spark will try to enforce it on 
the greater PHP community. After all, it is the "standard" right? Why should 
there be one standard for the core developers and another standard for the 
application developers? Sure that's inconsistent, and as such it must be a 
"bad thing".

I disapprove of any change to the language which is purely cosmetic and not 
an improvement in functionality. The words that I use to express my 
disapproval are an indicator of my level of disapproval. When I describe the 
supporters of this RFC as nit-picking, anal-retentive OCD sufferers you may 
regard that as derogatory but it is far from being abusive. I am simply 
pointing out that supporters of this RFC are spending too much time on 
irrelevant and trivial details which will not improve the language in any 
way whatsoever.

My words may annoy you, but I am just as annoyed at RFCs like this one.

-- 
Tony Marston