# Sanity tally #2 - Thread: https://externals.io/message/41165 - Original archive: https://news-web.php.net/php.internals/41165 - Started by Steph Fox on 2008-10-16T19:33:17+00:00 - Messages: 25 - Reply by email to internals@lists.php.net - More for agents: search with https://externals.io/search.md?q={query} · JSON API at https://externals.io/api · documentation at https://externals.io/llms.txt --- ## #41165 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-16T19:33:17+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41165 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 --- ## #41191 — Nathan Rixham — 2008-10-17T02:05:10+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41191 · In reply to: #41165 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 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 > just wondering if there are any cut of dates for the tally dates / rounds etc? --- ## #41192 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-17T02:18:53+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41192 · In reply to: #41191 > 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 --- ## #41195 — Daniel Brown — 2008-10-17T02:52:27+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41195 · In reply to: #41165 > 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. -- 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. --- ## #41198 — Lukas Kahwe Smith — 2008-10-17T06:21:02+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41198 · In reply to: #41192 > > […] > > 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 --- ## #41220 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-17T14:42:09+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41220 · In reply to: #41198 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 --- ## #41223 — Chris Stockton — 2008-10-17T15:08:21+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41223 · In reply to: #41220 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. > > […] > > I'm going to stop this tally at 50 responses. That should be enough to show > us where people generally are coming from. > > - Steph --- ## #41225 — Daniel Brown — 2008-10-17T15:25:41+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41225 · In reply to: #41223 On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Chris Stockton wrote: > > […] 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 -- 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. --- ## #41227 — Arvids Godjuks — 2008-10-17T15:36:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41227 · In reply to: #41225 My vote is for option #3 and for Gregs proposal too. --- ## #41228 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-17T15:39:43+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41228 · In reply to: #41225 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 --- ## #41229 — Catalin Zamfir Alexandru | KIT Software CAZ — 2008-10-17T15:40:33+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41229 · In reply to: #41228 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 #2 > > Hi Daniel, > > > […] > > 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 --- ## #41233 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-17T16:22:35+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41233 · In reply to: #41229 > 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 --- ## #41238 — Stanislav Malyshev — 2008-10-17T16:52:25+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41238 · In reply to: #41192 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 --- ## #41239 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-17T17:08:07+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41239 · In reply to: #41238 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) --- ## #41241 — Mike Willbanks — 2008-10-17T18:57:39+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41241 · In reply to: #41239 1. #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. 2. No opinion. > Hi Stas, > > So far, my proposals hardly got any hearing at all, fair or otherwise - > > […] > > 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) --- ## #41245 — Josh Davis — 2008-10-17T19:34:06+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41245 · In reply to: #41241 2008/10/17 Mike Willbanks : > 1. #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 --- ## #41253 — Keryx Web — 2008-10-18T15:27:57+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41253 · In reply to: #41233 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 --- ## #41257 — Josh Davis — 2008-10-18T18:28:14+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41257 · In reply to: #41253 2008/10/18 Keryx Web : > 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 --- ## #41258 — Daniel Brown — 2008-10-18T18:30:44+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41258 · In reply to: #41257 > 2008/10/18 Keryx Web : > > […] > > Is that why you voted for 3? Because triple colons are hard to read? Is that a problem? -- Founder, CEO - Parasane, LLC http://www.parasane.net/ --- ## #41259 — Josh Davis — 2008-10-18T18:41:29+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41259 · In reply to: #41258 2008/10/18 Daniel Brown : > > > […] > > 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. --- ## #41260 — Catalin Zamfir Alexandru | KIT Software CAZ — 2008-10-18T18:49:46+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41260 · In reply to: #41259 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 #2 > > 2008/10/18 Daniel Brown : > > […] > yes in > > […] > > 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. --- ## #41261 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-18T18:53:59+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41261 · In reply to: #41259 > 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 --- ## #41262 — Josh Davis — 2008-10-18T19:56:28+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41262 · In reply to: #41261 2008/10/18 Steph Fox : > 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 --- ## #41263 — Steph Fox — 2008-10-18T20:27:16+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41263 · In reply to: #41262 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 --- ## #41267 — Kalle Sommer Nielsen — 2008-10-18T21:08:32+00:00 URL: https://externals.io/message/41165#41267 · In reply to: #41261 Hi Steph 2008/10/18 Steph Fox : > > […] > > 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