I was hoping to have at least 30 respondees at this stage, but actually have
29 (and that includes Hannes' abstention). However, to keep y'all up to
date, here's where we're up to with Greg's proposals.
Option #3 is in the lead, but that lead is still pretty fragile; there are
only 3 full votes between #3 and option #1. 'Liveability' - ie whether
people could live with an alternative option - is therefore becoming more
important now.
#4 appears to be out of the running completely, and #2 is a long way behind.
If option #3 (or #1) gains a clear lead, we could get it down to two
proposals (Stas' versus Greg's) rather than three in the final round.
- Steph
Name Issue A Issue B
Greg #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Guilherme #3 Yes
Kalle #4 Yes
Tony Bibbs #3 Yes
Jaroslav Hanslik #1 (alt #3) Yes
Nathan Rixham* #2 (DS, alt #1 DS, #4) Yes
Liz #1 or #3 Yes
Andrei #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Janusz Lewandowski* #4 (alt #3) Yes
Steph #3 (alt #2) Abstained
Josh Davies #2 (DS) Yes
Hannes Abstained Abstained
Lester #3 N/A
Alexey #3 Yes
Marc Boeren #1 (DS) N/A
Derick #1 No
Vesselin Kenashkov #3 Yes
Lars* #3 (alt #1) N/A
Karsten Damberkalns #1 (alt #3) Yes
Jochem Maas #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Richard Quadling #1 (alt #2) No
Justin Carlson #3 N/A
James Dempster #1 Yes
Christian Schneider #3 N/A
Ben Ramsey #3 N/A
Ron Rademaker #3 N/A
Luke Richards #1 Yes
Stas #3 No
Geoffry Sneddon #1 Yes
name* = corrected/altered/clarified initial vote
DS = 'with different separator'
Issue A:
#1 - 14 (2 with different separator)
#2 - 8 (2 with different separator)
#3 - 19
#4 - 3
Abs- 1
Issue A weighted (first choice gets 2 points, rest 1):
#1 - 18 + 5 = 23
#2 - 10 + 3 = 13
#3 - 24 + 7 = 31
#4 - 4 + 1 = 5
Abs - 2 + 0 = 2
= 58/2
= 29 people
Issue B:
Yes - 17
No - 3 (see Richard and Stas' arguments)
Abs - 2
N/A - 7
= 29 people
Steph Fox wrote:
I was hoping to have at least 30 respondees at this stage, but actually
have 29 (and that includes Hannes' abstention). However, to keep y'all
up to date, here's where we're up to with Greg's proposals.Option #3 is in the lead, but that lead is still pretty fragile; there
are only 3 full votes between #3 and option #1. 'Liveability' - ie
whether people could live with an alternative option - is therefore
becoming more important now.#4 appears to be out of the running completely, and #2 is a long way
behind.If option #3 (or #1) gains a clear lead, we could get it down to two
proposals (Stas' versus Greg's) rather than three in the final round.
- Steph
Name Issue A Issue B
Greg #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Guilherme #3 Yes
Kalle #4 Yes
Tony Bibbs #3 Yes
Jaroslav Hanslik #1 (alt #3) Yes
Nathan Rixham* #2 (DS, alt #1 DS, #4) Yes
Liz #1 or #3 Yes
Andrei #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Janusz Lewandowski* #4 (alt #3) Yes
Steph #3 (alt #2) Abstained
Josh Davies #2 (DS) Yes
Hannes Abstained Abstained
Lester #3 N/A
Alexey #3 Yes
Marc Boeren #1 (DS) N/A
Derick #1 No
Vesselin Kenashkov #3 Yes
Lars* #3 (alt #1) N/A
Karsten Damberkalns #1 (alt #3) Yes
Jochem Maas #2 (alt #3, #1) Yes
Richard Quadling #1 (alt #2) No
Justin Carlson #3 N/A
James Dempster #1 Yes
Christian Schneider #3 N/A
Ben Ramsey #3 N/A
Ron Rademaker #3 N/A
Luke Richards #1 Yes
Stas #3 No
Geoffry Sneddon #1 Yesname* = corrected/altered/clarified initial vote
DS = 'with different separator'Issue A:
#1 - 14 (2 with different separator)
#2 - 8 (2 with different separator)
#3 - 19
#4 - 3
Abs- 1Issue A weighted (first choice gets 2 points, rest 1):
#1 - 18 + 5 = 23
#2 - 10 + 3 = 13
#3 - 24 + 7 = 31
#4 - 4 + 1 = 5
Abs - 2 + 0 = 2
= 58/2
= 29 peopleIssue B:
Yes - 17
No - 3 (see Richard and Stas' arguments)
Abs - 2
N/A - 7
= 29 people
just wondering if there are any cut of dates for the tally dates /
rounds etc?
just wondering if there are any cut of dates for the tally dates / rounds
etc?
When this tally started out, I'd been told that there had to be a
cut-and-dried answer by tonight or forget it. Then it was pointed out to me
that Stas' proposal wasn't getting a fair hearing. Then it turned out that
#3 (which is in the lead) is conceptually quite close to Stas' proposal
anyway and the devil is in the details. So really the remit's changed 3
times in the last 15 hours, because now (my) chief hope is to get a public
mandate for #3 on this round and have Stas, Greg and Dmitry come together to
work on polishing it without further ado.
But #1 might still win, and if that happens we'd need to put it to the vote
against Stas' original proposal because they're very different concepts.
So basically - I'm winging it.
Hope that suffices :)
- Steph
just wondering if there are any cut of dates for the tally dates /
rounds etc?When this tally started out, I'd been told that there had to be a
cut-and-dried answer by tonight or forget it.
We are not ready yet. So for now I will not force a decision just yet.
Hopefully next week ...
regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org
Hi Lukas,
We are not ready yet. So for now I will not force a decision just yet.
Hopefully next week ...
I'm going to stop this tally at 50 responses. That should be enough to show
us where people generally are coming from.
- Steph
I would like to vote for #3.
Hi Lukas,
We are not ready yet. So for now I will not force a decision just yet.
Hopefully next week ...
I'm going to stop this tally at 50 responses. That should be enough to show
us where people generally are coming from.
- Steph
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Chris Stockton
chrisstocktonaz@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to stop this tally at 50 responses. That should be enough to show
us where people generally are coming from.
There are about six total concurrent threads on this right now.
Would it make sense to create an OFFICIAL voting thread and only
count new votes posted to that thread from now until the fifty-vote
mark? Otherwise it seems that it introduces more confusion into an
already loaded issue.
Not to say that you're not already doing a fantastic job, Steph.
Just trying to help make your job easier. ;-P
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
More full-root dedicated server packages:
Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo.
Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo.
Intel 2.4GHz/320/GB/1GB/3TB $74.99/mo.
Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo.
My vote is for option #3 and for Gregs proposal too.
Hi Daniel,
There are about six total concurrent threads on this right now.
Would it make sense to create an OFFICIAL voting thread and only
count new votes posted to that thread from now until the fifty-vote
mark? Otherwise it seems that it introduces more confusion into an
already loaded issue.
Difficult, because some of the voters aren't usually subscribed to this
list. But I hear what you're saying.
Another time we need a straw poll across all the bases, it might be better
to stick it on a site somewhere.
This time, we only need 6 more votes and the poll will close anyway, so just
bear with me a little longer :)
- Steph
Seems everyone is going for #3 ... I'm with the crowd. +1 on #3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steph Fox [mailto:steph@php.net]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 6:40 PM
To: Daniel Brown; Chris Stockton
Cc: Lukas Kahwe Smith; nrixham@gmail.com; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Sanity tally #2Hi Daniel,
There are about six total concurrent threads on this right now.
Would it make sense to create an OFFICIAL voting thread and only
count new votes posted to that thread from now until the fifty-vote
mark? Otherwise it seems that it introduces more confusion into an
already loaded issue.Difficult, because some of the voters aren't usually subscribed to this
list. But I hear what you're saying.Another time we need a straw poll across all the bases, it might be
better
to stick it on a site somewhere.This time, we only need 6 more votes and the poll will close anyway, so
just
bear with me a little longer :)
- Steph
Seems everyone is going for #3 ... I'm with the crowd. +1 on #3.
OK, this isn't a good reason. Please try to treat this poll with some
seriousness.
The voting patterns became skewed from here on, so the poll's still 5 votes
away from completion because I can't sanely use wildcard votes.
Would anyone still planning to vote please include a brief explanation of
why they're making the choices they're making?
Thanks,
- Steph
Steph Fox skrev:
Would anyone still planning to vote please include a brief explanation
of why they're making the choices they're making?
OK. I'm in favour of number 3.
My main involvement with PHP is teaching it. I spend an endless amount
of time tracking down misplaced or omitted semi-colons and such things.
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes
in both suggestions. Explicit code is readable code is teachable code is
maintainable code.
Lars Gunther
2008/10/18 Keryx Web webmaster@keryx.se:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes in
both suggestions.
Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read?
JD
2008/10/18 Keryx Web webmaster@keryx.se:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes in
both suggestions.Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read?
Is that a problem?
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
Founder, CEO - Parasane, LLC
http://www.parasane.net/
2008/10/18 Daniel Brown parasane@gmail.com:
2008/10/18 Keryx Web webmaster@keryx.se:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare - yes in
both suggestions.Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read?
Is that a problem?
I'm trying to make some sense out of that poll's results, I'm not
implying anything. Poll numbers are not that useful if you don't
figure out why people voted the way they did.
That wouldn't be the right thread to discuss the merits of a solution,
anyway. This thread is about the tally, and I'm trying to interpret
it.
I'm with Keryx. Although I work as a subcontractor for our main company, I
still have to teach some novice PHP programmers what this whole OOP paradigm
is all about, and making them go furter from the third solution that is C++
like, is a pain in the back. I'm in for readable/maintainable code.
Josh, anyway, Steph did a great job with EVERY developer, asking each and
every one why they've chosen. I thinks this thread is almost over now. The
results of the poll should be cristal-clear ...
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Davis [mailto:phpwnd@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2008 9:41 PM
To: Daniel Brown
Cc: Keryx Web; internals@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Sanity tally #22008/10/18 Daniel Brown parasane@gmail.com:
2008/10/18 Keryx Web webmaster@keryx.se:
Triple colon as in suggestion 1 and 2 is a readability nightmare -
yes in
both suggestions.Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read?
Is that a problem?
I'm trying to make some sense out of that poll's results, I'm not
implying anything. Poll numbers are not that useful if you don't
figure out why people voted the way they did.That wouldn't be the right thread to discuss the merits of a solution,
anyway. This thread is about the tally, and I'm trying to interpret
it.
That wouldn't be the right thread to discuss the merits of a solution,
anyway. This thread is about the tally, and I'm trying to interpret
it.
I did actually keep tabs on this. Yes the choice of separator played a part
for many. However there were just as many who were happy with it - and the
same would have applied whatever separator was used.
However, the public part of this debate is over now. The Big 3 are very
aware of the tally and are very capable of drawing their own conclusions
from it. Everyone else on internals@ never wants to read 'the N word' ever
again.
I strongly suggest we all drop it and let them debate amongst themselves in
peace for a while ;)
- Steph
2008/10/18 Steph Fox steph@phparch.com:
I did actually keep tabs on this. Yes the choice of separator played a part
for many. However there were just as many who were happy with it - and the
same would have applied whatever separator was used.
What I'm wondering is how many of those "many" voted for or against a
proposition for the wrong reason. For instance, how many users
understood that 2 is not about the use of triple colon? If someone
disregarded 2 because of the triple colon then it was a mistake, as
the triple colon was only an example. And I'm not saying it would
change the result of that poll, if a poll on which separator to use
had been conducted perhaps the triple colon would have won--it has had
good numbers in the past.
In the end, what I'm wondering is how reliable people are when asked
about their opinion. Usually not much, but you know that already.
However, the public part of this debate is over now. The Big 3 are very
aware of the tally and are very capable of drawing their own conclusions
from it. Everyone else on internals@ never wants to read 'the N word' ever
again.
Well, I'm sure that people are very capable of drawing their own
conclusions, but I like to entertain the idea that clarifying a
responses can't hurt if you can bear the few extra emails in your
folder.
As for reading the N word... well, realistically I'd suggest creating
a filter on your mail client :] In this very thread you still see
people voting even though it was announced somewhere else that the
poll was closed, so I don't really see it dying anytime soon, sorry.
With that said, I'd enjoy having less noise on the list as much as
anyone else.
-JD
Josh, please...
What I'm wondering is how many of those "many" voted for or against a
proposition for the wrong reason. For instance, how many users
understood that 2 is not about the use of triple colon? If someone
disregarded 2 because of the triple colon then it was a mistake, as
the triple colon was only an example.
Some wrote '#2 with a different separator'. Others focused on the separator
itself and either voted for or against it. The fact is that this would also
happen in RL once the thing's out there - some happy, some not, some
actually finding the thing unusable. Specifically in the case of :::, those
with less than 20-20 vision genuinely couldn't use it - and that is
something we didn't really know before the poll. So that's shifted the
boundaries a little in what will or will not be an acceptable solution.
And I'm not saying it would
change the result of that poll, if a poll on which separator to use
had been conducted perhaps the triple colon would have won--it has had
good numbers in the past.
In fact it came second back in the day, so it was genuinely a contender.
In the end, what I'm wondering is how reliable people are when asked
about their opinion. Usually not much, but you know that already.
I do, but I think you have to look beyond that to 'why' the opinion rather
than 'what' the opinion. Even the rush of 'because everyone else is...' at
the end was interesting that way. It implies that any sensible solution
would be accepted by the majority.
With that said, I'd enjoy having less noise on the list as much as
anyone else.
Amen to that.
- Steph
Hi Steph
2008/10/18 Steph Fox steph@phparch.com:
That wouldn't be the right thread to discuss the merits of a solution,
anyway. This thread is about the tally, and I'm trying to interpret
it.I did actually keep tabs on this. Yes the choice of separator played a part
for many. However there were just as many who were happy with it - and the
same would have applied whatever separator was used.However, the public part of this debate is over now. The Big 3 are very
aware of the tally and are very capable of drawing their own conclusions
from it. Everyone else on internals@ never wants to read 'the N word' ever
again.
This is where you propose we have a php.internals.ns list for
namespace discussions, which (hopefull) will leave internals clean
after 5.3 :)
I strongly suggest we all drop it and let them debate amongst themselves in
peace for a while ;)
- Steph
--
--
Kalle Sommer Nielsen
Hi!
cut-and-dried answer by tonight or forget it. Then it was pointed out to
me that Stas' proposal wasn't getting a fair hearing. Then it turned out
So far, my proposals hardly got any hearing at all, fair or otherwise -
they were totally ignored on the vote - never even mentioned except for
the note in Greg's wiki (which, despite being incorrect, was never fixed
or changed), and it looks like at least some of the persons were under
impression they vote for something I had proposed and in fact voted for
something completely different.
Stanislav Malyshev, Zend Software Architect
stas@zend.com http://www.zend.com/
(408)253-8829 MSN: stas@zend.com
Hi Stas,
So far, my proposals hardly got any hearing at all, fair or otherwise -
they were totally ignored on the vote - never even mentioned except for
the note in Greg's wiki (which, despite being incorrect, was never fixed
or changed), and it looks like at least some of the persons were under
impression they vote for something I had proposed and in fact voted for
something completely different.
Don't worry, I'll work out some way to rectify that if needed (hopefully
without flooding internals@ again). All we're really getting out of this
straw poll is a broader picture of the elements that PHP users would or
would not like to see.
- Steph (4 votes to go)
- #3 - it is much cleaner to read than the other implementations in
resolving the conflict. a different separator will be much harder to simply
see from a comparison. in a state where many people are in fact doing code
reviews and as it gets larger into big business the easier to read is going
to be the best option (which is why #1 and #2 become difficult). #4 could
have larger drawbacks in the terms of integration with existing projects or
could cause conflicts and frustration. - No opinion.
Hi Stas,
So far, my proposals hardly got any hearing at all, fair or otherwise -
they were totally ignored on the vote - never even mentioned except for the
note in Greg's wiki (which, despite being incorrect, was never fixed or
changed), and it looks like at least some of the persons were under
impression they vote for something I had proposed and in fact voted for
something completely different.Don't worry, I'll work out some way to rectify that if needed (hopefully
without flooding internals@ again). All we're really getting out of this
straw poll is a broader picture of the elements that PHP users would or
would not like to see.
- Steph (4 votes to go)
2008/10/17 Mike Willbanks pencap@gmail.com:
- #3 - it is much cleaner to read than the other implementations in
resolving the conflict. a different separator will be much harder to simply
see from a comparison.
I beg to differ. A different separator (namespace scope resolution
operator) gives immediate feedback about a statement, e.g.
"foo:>bar()" is unambiguously a call to function bar() from namespace
foo, whereas a solution based on top-level declarations requires to go
back possibly 1000's of lines above the statement to check whether
"foo::bar()" is a call to static method bar() of class foo, or
function bar() of namespace foo.
To put it in other words, when you're reading line #1234 of a script,
you can't be sure of what foo::bar() does unless you clearly remember
the "use" statements at the top of the file or go back to check them.
Not to mention that you also need to remember the top declarations or
remember which aliase(s) you gave to "foo" as a namespace and "foo" as
a class, if you're using both in the same file.
JD
I was hoping to have at least 30 respondees at this stage, but actually have
29 (and that includes Hannes' abstention). However, to keep y'all up to
date, here's where we're up to with Greg's proposals.
Sorry for coming late to the party. Among other things, I've
finally been swapping my subscription address from my @gmail.com to
my @php.net address before Derick finally loses it and attacks me in a
dark parking lot. ;-P
I'm strongly enough "pro-three" that I'd vote #3 twice, so feel
free to put me down for three points on #3. Sounds like a campaign
slogan: "Go Three For Three."
As to the second issue, because I don't have an firm, absolute
opinion on one side or the other of the issue as it stands now, I'll
take the route you and Hannes have both chosen and abstain.
--
</Daniel P. Brown>
More full-root dedicated server packages:
Intel 2.4GHz/60GB/512MB/2TB $49.99/mo.
Intel 3.06GHz/80GB/1GB/2TB $59.99/mo.
Intel 2.4GHz/320/GB/1GB/3TB $74.99/mo.
Dedicated servers, VPS, and hosting from $2.50/mo.