Enviado com um e-mail seguro do Proton Mail. Em quarta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2025 às 09:38, Edmond Dantes <[email protected]> escreveu:
> Hello all > > According to all previous discussions, version 1.6 of this RFC has > been prepared and is now being submitted for a vote: > > Voting Page: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async/voting > RFC https://wiki.php.net/rfc/true_async > > The vote officially starts tomorrow, as previously announced. > > For version 1.6 the following important change was made: > All input/output functions are now bound by the shared requirement of > being non-blocking with respect to the process. However, the specific > behavior of each function may (optionally) be defined in separate > RFCs. > > Thus, I/O functions themselves are not part of this RFC, but the main > RFC defines the general way in which they must operate. Thus (as I see > it), the RFC achieves a balance between cohesion and separation of > concerns. > > Since the discussion period has ended, I will not be engaging in > further debate (except regarding the voting process itself). If you > have any questions for me of any kind, you may ask them either in a > separate thread or privately. (This also means that I will not be > answering RFC-related questions in this thread). I will be glad to > hear your opinions and feedback. I wish all participants the best of > luck. > > --- > Best Regards, Ed Most of the people who advocate for this are responsible for the language's backwardness; they don't know how to conduct a conversation, it's just their opinion and nothing more. Worse, many times they aren't even using the language; they're stuck in the past, like dinosaurs. And the conversation is always the same: "Want asynchronous programming? Change languages, go to Node, switch to Go," but it's not that simple. I'm amazed at how shallow their knowledge is, yet they defend the cause as if they were experts, without even trying to delve deeper into the subject. Those who do this don't lift a finger to move in that direction, and instead they come up with things nobody asked for, insignificant things that only 1% of people will use. They say few people use asynchronous PHP. The adoption is totally different when the language already offers it natively. "Ah, but it will only be used by a small percentage of PHP users," and what about the useless things we didn't ask for that will only be used by 1%? You could argue that it's easy to say, that they dedicate time from their hobby to improving PHP, and I appreciate that, but someone, in this case Ed, also dedicated time to it.
