Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:99394
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain rhsoft.net designates 91.118.73.15 as permitted sender)
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <5313411f-40b4-58c6-83a8-7e813526f2a7@tekwire.net>
 <12948b4b-bd2d-b88e-80a0-f70ba2d49657@fedoraproject.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706061012130.2857@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <5e8464ca-8fa1-ad0c-c296-36ed1b6bd2a3@tekwire.net>
Message-ID: <05d8f04a-4fad-fbee-4bc5-bf85f282212c@rhsoft.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 12:33:51 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5e8464ca-8fa1-ad0c-c296-36ed1b6bd2a3@tekwire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: de-CH
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Proposing inclusion of PCS in the 7.2 core distribution
From: lists@rhsoft.net ("lists@rhsoft.net")



Am 06.06.2017 um 12:27 schrieb François Laupretre:
> What I am proposing here is very different, as the main objective is to 
> dramatically reduce the line count of the core source, without 
> significant performance loss. If we had an army of C developers 
> maintaining every core extension, maybe we wouldn't need that, but we 
> don't (we even have fewer and fewer). What we have instead is thousands 
> of lines of C code without any active maintainer. 'phar' is an example 
> we talked about recently, but there are many others. Converting some of 
> this code to PHP without loosing performance would improve the 
> situation, IMO. So, while I agree that 3rd-party extensions may have 
> very good reasons to maintain both an extension and a PHP package, 
> opposing this for core extensions is very different.

but what is the difference? just because you re-write some code in a 
different programming language don't grow maintainers for the future of 
that code