On 16/08/2019 11:18, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
It is not necessarily required to have an implementation for an RFC
available, see item (6) in <https://wiki.php.net/rfc/howto>.

I have enormous respect for Derick, but I can't help but feel this "RFC" was bodged from the start.

There's certainly a place for straw polls, the ability to receive quick feedback on opinions and sentiment can be a positive thing in a lot of circumstances. This however, seemed more like an invitation for internals developers to express that they wouldn't entertain spending any time on the proposal, in effect forcefully slamming the door shut on it before a proper discussion had been had.

The end result did seem to be like watching Zeev be thrown to the lions in the colosseum. While entertaining for a short time, I believe it left something of a sour taste in the mouth, and it certainly did not present internals well to the outside world. The hasty edits to the Wiki then made it worse, and so on.

I believe for anything remotely positive to come out of this whole affair, things need to quickly and visibly pivot to a meaningful discussion about the long term game plan for PHP, and build a consensus on things such as strict typing, overloading in the core functions, and perhaps most divisively, if "cleaning up the language" is in itself a viable justification for backwards compatibility breaks, and if so, what weight it should carry.

Mark Randall

PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to