On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:27 AM Sara Golemon <poll...@php.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM Derick Rethans <der...@php.net> wrote: > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/p-plus-plus > > > > To follow up my no vote; What I'm against is splitting the language on > hard boundaries that never disappear, only widen. I'm also a 'No' on > Editions, but slightly less of a 'No', and possibly a 'Yes', if those > editions are clearly intended to fade over time. > > -Sara > I'd vote "No" if I had a vote. I appreciate Zeev proposing the idea. I've been as vocal as he has on the short tag issue, and generally fall into the "avoid BC unless there are overwhelming positives" camp. Maybe I don't have the complete picture since I don't actually do core development, but I have been a professional PHP developer for 14 years (Thursday is my 14th anniversary) and I've been using it for fun/school work for 20 years. From what I've seen, there isn't near as much contention on BC breaks in general as a solution like this would require in order to be justified. As someone mentioned in another thread, the majority of the features discussed (union types, annotations, enums, etc.) don't require BC breaks at all. Among things that do require them (both new features and clean up of older features), I see that most people, myself included, willing to accept them once they have passed. I definitely think it's possible to more PHP forward with lots of new features, and even cleaning up some old and obsolete parts, without moving too far in either extreme in terms of BC breaks. I also think that internals has done a pretty good job of that up to this point, and have no doubt they will continue to do so. I don't know if it was just a coincidence in timing, but it feels to me like this proposal was spurred, at least in part, by the discussions over short tags. If so, I definitely think that it is an overreaction. I also think the discussions on short tags show why even taking this proposed path wouldn't solve anything in the long run. The discussion over short tags have got pretty heated at times, but it seems to me that it is mainly because both sides are just repeating their talking points without discussing or answering the points made by the other side. I think that is partly due to the discussion medium, and partly due to the diversity of the participants. Without immediate feedback in a manner you expect, it's hard to tell if the point you just typed out over 5 paragraphs actually made sense to others that will read it. Bottom line, though, is that there will be contentious debates about topics no matter what. You might be able to avoid the debate on whether or not to require strict typing in P++, but you've still got to decide on which types you're going to support. Strict typing might never again need to be discussed in legacy PHP, but, there will always be discussions about some of the more controversial ways that types are juggled. There might be a time in the future where I do feel like a proposal like this is justified or even needed. I just don't feel we are at that point right now, nor do I think we are headed towards it. -- Chase Peeler chasepee...@gmail.com
