> On 3 Feb 2019, at 7:17, Ben Ramsey <b...@benramsey.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, at 11:04, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> I'm honestly a bit perplexed by how many people here viewing Windows >> support as a must have, while at the same time I think we all agree PHP is >> very scarcely found on production Windows servers, and JIT is a >> predominantly production feature. > > While this is anecdotal, I think you might find a different perspective from > user group organizers. I've encountered many user group members over the > years who run PHP on Windows. It's more common that they develop on Windows > and deploy to Linux, but I do know those who also deploy to Windows in > production. > This is actually very consistent with my experience, including some hard data I have from relevant (even if it 100% representative) download and usage stats. Windows is an extremely popular platform for developing PHP on - in fact, from the data I have (which isn’t conclusive) - it’s even more popular than Linux in certain demographics. But much like you say, this dev scenario is more common (I would say a lot more common) than it is to see Windows in production - which does not come to say it’s non existent in prod, just that it’s a lot less common.
> That's not to say I personally think that Windows support is a must-have for > JIT, but it's definitely important for many of the people in the user groups > I've worked with. I’m not against having support for Windows at all. I do think that much of the discussion here ensued because it wasn’t completely clear that JIT is geared pretty much exclusively at production systems. Personally, I see Windows support as between nice-to-have and important, but not as a must. In other words, if we can bring this boost to the vast majority of production systems, not being able to bring it to a (I believe small) minority of these systems shouldn’t be a deal breaker. I respect that others may have a different view, as long as it’s clear to everyone that JIT is indeed almost exclusively geared at production. Zeev
