What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls to methods
which are not declared static? Currently, this works:
class A {
function B() { return 1; }
}
A::B();
But really, if B was intended to be used that way, it should have been
declared as static.
-Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
- If it ain't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet. *
What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls
to methods which are not declared static? Currently, this works:
I like the idea, but wouldn't that cause some problems with BC?
-~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~-
John Coggeshall
john at coggeshall dot org http://www.coggeshall.org/
-~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~--~=~-
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Zmievski [mailto:andrei@gravitonic.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 9:53 AM
To: PHP Internals; engine@lists.zend.com
Subject: [PHP-DEV] Static and non-static methodsWhat does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls
to methods which are not declared static? Currently, this works:class A {
unction B() { return 1; }
}A::B();
But really, if B was intended to be used that way, it should
have been declared as static.-Andrei
http://www.gravitonic.com/
- If it ain't broken, it doesn't
have enough features yet. *
What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls to methods
which are not declared static? Currently, this works:class A {
function B() { return 1; }
}A::B();
But really, if B was intended to be used that way, it should have been
declared as static.
Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
-Sterling
-Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
- If it ain't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet. *
--
"Reductionists like to take things apart. The rest of us are
just trying to get it together."
- Larry Wall, Programming Perl, 3rd Edition
What does everyone think about disallowing non-instance calls to methods
which are not declared static? Currently, this works:class A { function B() { return 1; } } A::B();But really, if B was intended to be used that way, it should have been
declared as static.Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
Derick
--
"my other box is your windows PC"
Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/
PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals http://php-mag.net/
Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
<vent> sometimes I just hate BC.. </vent>
-Andrei http://www.gravitonic.com/
- Use the source, Luke. *
Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
<vent> sometimes I just hate BC.. </vent>
Why only sometimes?
Besides, it is much a matter of asking yourself: what is most important,
being compatible with old PHP ugly-OO code or compatibility with other
OO-languages such as C++ and Java?
I know what I would answer to that question. :-)
--
Best regards,
Per Lundberg / Capio ApS
Phone: +46-18-4186040
Fax: +46-18-4186049
Web: http://www.nobolt.com
It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have to
be compatible?
J
Per Lundberg wrote:
Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
<vent> sometimes I just hate BC.. </vent>Why only sometimes?
Besides, it is much a matter of asking yourself: what is most important,
being compatible with old PHP ugly-OO code or compatibility with other
OO-languages such as C++ and Java?I know what I would answer to that question. :-)
--
Best regards,Per Lundberg / Capio ApS
Phone: +46-18-4186040
Fax: +46-18-4186049
Web: http://www.nobolt.com
It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have to
be compatible?
Because it will make it easier for C++ or Java programmers to find PHP a
pleasant experience.
I think much of the discussion of where PHP should go is a bit
misleading, actually. Zeev and Andi (and others probably) believe it is
important to keep PHP being easy to learn by newcomers. Yes, of course,
I agree to that. Still, I do not come from this kind of background (PHP
was my 8th programming language -- Basic, x86 assembly, Pascal, C, C++,
Perl and Java in that order) and I really think it is an unwise idea to
only focus on being able to learn for people with little or no
programming experience. It is equally important, in my eyes, to make it
convenient for people with a different background, such as mine. It
will make PHP more attractive for advanced programmers.
Regarding this specific patch, I think it is a very very good idea since
it removes one of the very "weird" features of PHP OO, where I think it
is really far too relaxed. This is one of the big weaknesses of Perl I
think (ultra-relaxed OO). Of course, the PHP OO in ZendEngine2 is
greatly improved, but still, things like this can make experienced OO
programmers with C++ or Java background just shudder and say "it's a
toy". I don't think that's good.
--
Best regards,
Per Lundberg / Capio ApS
Phone: +46-18-4186040
Fax: +46-18-4186049
Web: http://www.nobolt.com
Once you start down that route, where will it end? When PHP's object model
is 100% compatible with Java and C++ (which is obviously impossible given
the differences between the two)? Or perhaps it should be made compatible
with Ruby or SmallTalk, so experienced Ruby and SmallTalk programmers will
have a more pleasant PHP experience?
One the main reasons for PHP's popularity is that it is easy for the
newcomers. Sure, there are many advanced and experienced developers using
PHP, but I'm assuming that they aren't in the majority.
As for this specific patch, BC is the main concern. Then again, with all of
the changes to the object model, maybe this would be a good time to
implement the change, as BC is going to be broken anyway, but it should be
for a better reason than appeasing C++ and Java programmers.
J
Per Lundberg wrote:
It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have
to be compatible?Because it will make it easier for C++ or Java programmers to find PHP a
pleasant experience.I think much of the discussion of where PHP should go is a bit
misleading, actually. Zeev and Andi (and others probably) believe it is
important to keep PHP being easy to learn by newcomers. Yes, of course,
I agree to that. Still, I do not come from this kind of background (PHP
was my 8th programming language -- Basic, x86 assembly, Pascal, C, C++,
Perl and Java in that order) and I really think it is an unwise idea to
only focus on being able to learn for people with little or no
programming experience. It is equally important, in my eyes, to make it
convenient for people with a different background, such as mine. It
will make PHP more attractive for advanced programmers.Regarding this specific patch, I think it is a very very good idea since
it removes one of the very "weird" features of PHP OO, where I think it
is really far too relaxed. This is one of the big weaknesses of Perl I
think (ultra-relaxed OO). Of course, the PHP OO in ZendEngine2 is
greatly improved, but still, things like this can make experienced OO
programmers with C++ or Java background just shudder and say "it's a
toy". I don't think that's good.--
Best regards,Per Lundberg / Capio ApS
Phone: +46-18-4186040
Fax: +46-18-4186049
Web: http://www.nobolt.com
It's been said before, but PHP isn't C++ or Java, so why would they have to
be compatible?Because it will make it easier for C++ or Java programmers to find PHP a
pleasant experience.
Only the people looking for purity and aesthetic beauty. I hate to break
it to you, but PHP is an ugly language. It is always going to be an ugly
language. Ugly problems often need ugly solutions because the pretty
solution is sometimes just too much of a hassle for everyone involved.
There are many examples of this uglyness. Case-insentive function names
is one, you are arguing that this is another. But look at it from the
real world and not from the purist looking for beauty. Does it really
matter that you can't make two functions that only differ by case? Are
you really going to have foo() and Foo() in the same code doing different
things?
Along the same lines, why do you care if you can call a static method in a
class without declaring it static? Other languages, or some CS prof
somewhere told you it was uncool, but so what? It isn't going to change
the way your code runs or the way anybody uses the language.
If we were starting from scratch at this point, sure, some of these things
would be done differently, but we have a bunch of legacy code out there,
and when choosing whether to break backward compatibility we need to look
long and hard at why we are doing so in each case. If the only answer is
for purity or aesthetic beauty reasons, we are very likely to always
choose the uglier BC road.
-Rasmus
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Along the same lines, why do you care if you can call a static method
in a class without declaring it static?
A warning would be nice. After all declaring a static method
explicitly static using the appropriate keyword improves performance (a
bit) because $this doesn't have to be initialized etc.
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/
Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/
Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
<vent> sometimes I just hate BC.. </vent>Why only sometimes?
Besides, it is much a matter of asking yourself: what is most important,
being compatible with old PHP ugly-OO code or compatibility with other
OO-languages such as C++ and Java?I know what I would answer to that question. :-)
Yes, "being compatible"
Derick
--
"my other box is your windows PC"
Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/
PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals http://php-mag.net/
Well its a BC nightmare, and I don't really see any big advantage.
Agreed, breaking BC for this sounds like a bad idea to me.
<vent> sometimes I just hate BC.. </vent>
heh, me too :)
Derick
--
"my other box is your windows PC"
Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/
PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals http://php-mag.net/