Assess acceptability of having php-ds into core View as Markdown

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 7:27 PM, guilhermeblanco@gmail.com
guilhermeblanco@gmail.com wrote:

Hi internals,

PHP 7 leverages a lot the performance internally and many PHP applications
in the wild. Much of these improvement came by experimentation through
PHPNG and the usage of efficient data structures internally. This idea of
performance improvements are crucial to handle more requests, reduce server
overload, etc.

However, what lacks in PHP is the exposure of more efficient, use case
specific data structures, that could allow end users to easily improve
performance of their applications, instead of using a general,
multi-purpose data structure that we have as "array".

Based on that (please keep in mind I haven't spoken with library author),
I'd like assess the receptability of incorporating php-ds library into core.

Library author wrote a good (and lengthy) article explaining his motivation
and performance benchmarks around it. Here are the related links:

Article:
https://medium.com/@rtheunissen/efficient-data-structures-for-php-7-9dda7af674cd
Extension: https://github.com/php-ds/extension
Polyfill: https://github.com/php-ds/polyfill
Tests: https://github.com/php-ds/tests
Benchmark: https://github.com/php-ds/benchmarks

Best regards,

--
Guilherme Blanco
Lead Architect at E-Block

I've actually been working on data structures for PHP for years. I'm
really glad I haven't pushed for anything before PHP 7, as
improvements there give much more control in the data structures which
is needed.

I can say that work in question is of fairly good quality, though it
makes some design decisions that I disagree with. Notably I think the
Hashable interface is inferior to asking for hash and equal functions.
By forcing the objects to be Hashable or to use spl_object_hash you
cannot put objects into Maps or Sets that do not implement the
interface (if you need behavior other than spl_object_hash). Routinely
this has been a problem of every collection style library I've used
before: having to implement a given interface that is new means the
majority of the objects you want to put into it do not implement the
interface.

Also, if we move forward with putting this into core then we need to
solidify our namespace. We currently reserve PHP and php in the
docs, but this is not enforced in the runtime. I would not want to put
these structures into the global namespace because Map, Set and
Collection are all very common names.

In any case I encourage people to use the APIs if they are somewhat
interested. There is a polyfill available so you can become familiar
without installing the extension.

Hi

On May 13, 2016 8:28 AM, "guilhermeblanco@gmail.com" <
guilhermeblanco@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi internals,

PHP 7 leverages a lot the performance internally and many PHP applications
in the wild. Much of these improvement came by experimentation through
PHPNG and the usage of efficient data structures internally. This idea of
performance improvements are crucial to handle more requests, reduce
server
overload, etc.

However, what lacks in PHP is the exposure of more efficient, use case
specific data structures, that could allow end users to easily improve
performance of their applications, instead of using a general,
multi-purpose data structure that we have as "array".

Based on that (please keep in mind I haven't spoken with library author),
I'd like assess the receptability of incorporating php-ds library into
core.

Library author wrote a good (and lengthy) article explaining his
motivation
and performance benchmarks around it. Here are the related links:

Article:

https://medium.com/@rtheunissen/efficient-data-structures-for-php-7-9dda7af674cd

Extension: https://github.com/php-ds/extension
Polyfill: https://github.com/php-ds/polyfill
Tests: https://github.com/php-ds/tests
Benchmark: https://github.com/php-ds/benchmarks

I like this ext. Good work.

However I am not a fan to include as is. Many duplicates with spl. And we
know too well that (standard)pl is a kind of a mess as it gets everything
possible without too much thoughts about consistent APIs or if it makes
sense. Or if one part fits better in the engine directly.

Adding yet another extension to achieve similar goals, even if it is
better, is not going to help to improve the situation, in contrary.

I would prefer to discuss each structure individually to see if we need it,
where it should be and how it should be done from an api pov.

Cheers
Pierre

Hi internals,

PHP 7 leverages a lot the performance internally and many PHP applications
in the wild. Much of these improvement came by experimentation through
PHPNG and the usage of efficient data structures internally. This idea of
performance improvements are crucial to handle more requests, reduce server
overload, etc.

However, what lacks in PHP is the exposure of more efficient, use case
specific data structures, that could allow end users to easily improve
performance of their applications, instead of using a general,
multi-purpose data structure that we have as "array".

Based on that (please keep in mind I haven't spoken with library author),
I'd like assess the receptability of incorporating php-ds library into core.

Library author wrote a good (and lengthy) article explaining his motivation
and performance benchmarks around it. Here are the related links:

Article:
https://medium.com/@rtheunissen/efficient-data-structures-for-php-7-9dda7af674cd
Extension: https://github.com/php-ds/extension
Polyfill: https://github.com/php-ds/polyfill
Tests: https://github.com/php-ds/tests
Benchmark: https://github.com/php-ds/benchmarks

Best regards,

I am all for more efficient and performant tools being available
natively. However, the php-ds extension in particular, while it sounds
very nice, is still missing what I believe are key collection-related
operations, that is, set-level operations. The equivalents of
array_map, array_filter, first(callable) (ie, the first item that passes
a given callable condition), etc. are all extremely powerful
collection-level, functional operations. We have array-based versions
and have for many years, but having them on formal collections or
objects has always been a sore point, and run into various road blocks
of "arrays aren't objects", "but then we can't extend the set of
operations", etc. The pipe syntax currently being discussed helps some,
but it's not as clean as doing it natively.

If we're going to improve the quality of our native collection tools,
then a richer set of operations (for which there is a known list of
common operations from most functional languages) needs to be part of
that discussion.

--Larry Garfield