On 4/18/16 4:34 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
I repeat, where was the insult in the post in question? What exactly
were the insulting words?
I chose just one example:
> Those who cannot write effective software without these "clever"
> additions to the language are doing nothing but announcing to the
> world that they are not clever enough to write effective software
> using their own limited abilities.
I think it's hard to avoid construing an implication that people
proposing and/or supporting changes to how PHP handles type in the
current discussions here are incompetent programmers.
There's no doubt that this sentence posits a class of incompetent
programmers who need crutches ('these "clever" additions') and a
complementary class of competent programmer who don't. Saying so is
pointless without some assignment (imaginary, implied or real) of
individuals to the classes. It's hard to imagine that present company or
the people whose interests we attempt to represent are not involved in
the assignment. I find this a bit insulting.
Insult is something experienced as well as something performed. If
enough people experience it then probably it was performed, regardless
of intent. So to this extent I just disagree that...
> The fact that you don't like what I say does
> not make it an insult.
"It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear"
But we are now completely off topic. To bring us back on topic I repeat
my request that you try to be specific about what you want and why, with
respect to the RFCs under discussion.
Tom
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
