On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:43 PM Michał Brzuchalski < michal.brzuchal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've got an impression that you're the only one who sees a good direction > in splitting the language in two different dialects and am not sure about > sincere intentions. > This isn't splitting the languages, much like TS/JS aren't "split languages" and C/C++ aren't "split languages". They're sister languages. For me, sisterhood implies a fairly close relationship. They would be sharing much of their syntax; They'd be sharing their runtime, and the developers who develop that runtime; They'd be sharing their extensions, and the developers who develop them; They'd be sharing most of their tools. > I may be wrong about that but I read this as a way to get evolutionary > camp focus on own dialect and leave PHP in peace. > If that's the impression I gave, I did a lousy job presenting my idea. I'm talking about creating P++ as a first-class citizen alongside PHP, on top of our unified runtime. When you download PHP - you'd be downloading P++ as well, and vice versa. They'd be versioned and released together. They'll share bugfixes. They'll share pretty much everything - except for the deltas in certain syntax elements and behavior. In a nutshell: <?php print "hello world!"; ?> would be PHP, while <?p++?> <?php print "hello world!"; ?> would be P++. That's on the same setup, two-in-one, same binaries (of course - name/tags/format subject to change, that's just an illustration). But I think their interests are in language evolution and not in writing > own language. > That languages have to evolve their syntax isn't an axiom. Much if not most of the evolution in most mature, popular languages happens at the layers above the language - the standard library, frameworks, apps. It's not a given that PHP's destiny is to become strictly typed and introduce more and more BC breaks. If you go back to my original piece, I'm trying to solve a fundamental problem that there are two huge camps who have diametrically opposing view about what needs to happen. It's clear what camp you're on, and that's absolutely fine - you're among many awesome people. But you need to realize that there's another huge camp, that thinks very differently than you about what needs to happen next. With such opposing views, there are two potential outcomes: - A zero sum game. A win for one camp is a loss for the other. We've been mostly in this mode for the last few years. It's not pleasant for anybody. - A creative solution that allows both camps to get what they want. Zeev >
