On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert Cummings <rob...@interjinn.com> wrote:
> Rene Veerman wrote:
>> unless the actual php development team would like to weigh in on this
>> matter of course.
> Wrong list. Subscribe to internals.
>> yes, i do consider it that important.
>> these nay-sayers usually also lobby the dev-team to such extent that
>> these features would actually not make it into php.
> It's a debate. The dev team consider proposals and weigh in on the merits. I
> was a proponent for goto support during the development of PHP 5. We now
> have it. If you arguments are valid and there's no technical issue
> preventing it, and there's someone with time and skill to created the
> functionality, then it will happen. If not then it won't. I've seen many
> things added to PHP and I've watched and participated in the threads on
> internals that have lead to many new features. This is open source, opinions
> matter, but personal attacks and poor argument do not really make the cut.

hahaha... you dismiss what i believe to be valid explanations without
any counter-argument besides "more sql hardware!", not just by me but
by all advocates of threading&shared memory in php.

for some reason, which is still not clear to me, you nay-sayers refuse
to let a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE (not a "hammer", not a "fishing boat")
evolve to stay useful, relevant even, in a changing market.

and you're blatantly telling me to use a different kind of "hammer",
one that would force me to rewrite large sections of my existing
code-base, and one that i have told you i would find for many other
_valid_ reasons not optimal.

basically, you're determining my choice of options without me ever
having forced you to do something a certain way..

so you'll have to excuse my strong language.
it's just letting you know that you shouldn't butt into other peoples
business when it doesn't really affect you.

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to