On Jul 20, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Peter Cowburn <petercowb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As for the PHP 7 section, this is by far the dominant part of the RFC. Both > in terms of physical presence, but also points and counter-points. > > It also contains, IMO unnecessarily, light-hearted and jokey comments not > befitting an RFC — unless you see the RFC as a joke too ;) — about 6 being > a failed version in other software, and 7 a lucky number. Seriously?.. > > The RFC as a whole is very light on trying to summarise, or at least > provide reference to, the history of "PHP 6” and discussions around it. > This is disappointing, if the aim was to see a balanced summary of previous > discussions. However, this particular gripe is a common issue with our > RFCs as a whole. > > Personally, regardless of the content of the RFC, I feel that the choice is > obvious. I’m just a little concerned about the lack of quality from both > “sides” in presenting their argument(s), or not. I actually think that both perception and facts need to be take into account on naming/version number decisions. I must say I do share the perception that many version 6’s in open-source have been failures and I’ve heard many people ridiculing the PHP 6 is like Perl 6. So I don’t think it’s irrelevant. - This is perception but it matters. Fact - There is SO much PHP 6 content out there and many folks think they know what PHP 6 is that I think the confusion we’d be creating in calling this PHP 6 would be huge and unnecessary. To the point I am even surprised we have folks here who are resisting not calling it PHP 6. It feels pretty obvious to me that we are doing people a disservice calling it PHP 6. But anyway, didn’t want to restart the discussion but just wanted to point out that RFC should address both perception and fact because both matter. It’s not just a technical discussion. Andi -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
