On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Benjamin Eberlei <kont...@beberlei.de> > wrote: > > > This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch. > Since > > the branch is pulic on Github, how is development secret? > > Benjamin, please check the background before replying. 80% of phpng > development has been done secretly, before it was even announced. This > development happened while we were discussing, collaborating, working > on what will be php-next, including the long due 64bit patch. These > actions and discussion have done without any feedback from any of the > phpng developers. I can't blame them for not talking about phpng, but > to have signed a NDA to do work on PHP itself. > I know the background and the int64 clash was unfortunate, however it was resolved from what I see in a good compromise. I don't see how starting to work on some feature/refactoring requires immediate communication with all of the team, since you need to prove it works first, obviously you have the prototype then, which is always kind of secret, because you are the only one who worked on it. Everybody can put their own time where they want in Open-Source, and since After the initial prototype there was the announcment, no ninja merge or similar, discussion is still possible. But this requires constructive review of the patches and pull requests, like its done in any project I worked on (Symfony, Doctrine, ..). Instead this discussion has already gone south again discussing about politics instead of the actual code. > > > With Zend, Nikita > > and laurence putting so much time into this, I fail to see how it would > work > > to notify everyone of all the changes they are doing. As with every big > > project you have to put time into following its progress. I agree though > > that Zend (Zeev, Dimitry) could improve the RFC with a little more > details, > > its focussing a lot on performance. > > A little? There is no details, there is no doc, there is nothing but a > huge set of patches. > > > As i understood Nikita and laurence they are already improving it based > on > > the first prototype from month ago. Honestly, if Nikita says converting > his > > extensions improved the API a lot then this is a good sign for me > already. > > It does not improve anything from an extension developer point of > view, or very little. On the other APIs are more dangerous, confusing > and inconsistent. > So there is your opinion aginst Nikita's. He has already ported his extensions and gave a positive opinion. > > >> > >> > >> The other important parts are things like type hinting for scalar, to > >> match the class type hinting, getter/setter (100% positive feedback to > >> do what we proposed in the related RFC), object like methods for > >> array/string, keeping BC with the existing APIs but providing cleaner > >> userfriendlier APIs, etc. It is basically what we can find in the > >> ideas page about php6, a page I created months ago and began to > >> discuss. These discussions happened here, publically, and you > >> (phpng's) never replied to any of them. This is what we should discuss > >> now, not tomorrow, not when phpng is merged (if it ever happens). This > >> is what allows us to do an informed guess for a possible release cycle > >> for php-next. I will post a proposal for a timetable, something that > >> could fit for both sides. Do not expect it to match your one year > >> requirement, but it won't be three years either. > > > > > > I think internal refactoring is exactly the reason to move from 5 to 6/7 > and > > not necessarily end user facing changes. i wouldn't mind starting type > > hinting, getter/setter or any other discussion again once a 6.0/7.0 is > out. > > This has worked for PHP since 5.3, 5.4, 5.5. > > Again once it is out? In which world do you live? that will never > happen. We have an opportunity now to do it, let do it. Also I am very > surprised to read that from you, I thought you were a strong supporter > of these features, or annotations. > PHP 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 had fantastic feature additions and they are only minor releases. I am a strong supporter of those features, however they have been voted out several times, so I have accepted that they will probably be never in the Core. I don't mind, they are just syntactic glue, PHP works for me anyways. What I would hate to see is that PHP 6/7 blocks itself by wanting to be too much, failing again or delaying years like PHP 5.3. I agree with Zeev that if phpng is going to be master, then this should be released sometime next year. Btw, it is your credit that we have the RFC process now, so i fail to see how this would mean we have another 10 years of PHP 6/7 deadlock, the release schedule increased massively since then and I expect this to continue, even more so with the HHVM competition. > > > I'd rather just take the performance gains, given that PHP as a language > > just works(tm), additional features are nice, but not having them is not > a > > show stopper and shouldn't block something as big as phpng. > > It is. And performance is by no mean the main PHP problem, despite HHVM. > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org >
