RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
At 16:46 07.06.2002, Joseph Tate wrote: How much of C has been reused, and reused and reused again? There is no oo in stdlib. Ah come on there is no oo in c. You should have asked for C++ and STL (and that is very much of code reuse even though its pro is its main foe: it is so much of reuse that nearly none understands it). To add something here from my point: - When working alone PHP is fine and Java is oversized. - However i do like the PHP API very much because a) it is very powerfull and b) it does not use oo where that is not needed. - People here are mixing up thinks they do not really understand: Java is class based OO -MI +Interfaces C++ is class based OO JavaScript is OO without classes but with prototypes. PHP is something between Java/JavaScript -Interfaces +Aggregation (added by module). It has classes but allows dynamically adding of members. - When people here ask for private/protected/public this means they want to hide some class internal realisation aspects from derived classes. This is mostly used by workgroups where everyone has his own part and a class protocol (some meber functions and their interaction) is designed to allow every group member to code happily for his own in his area and knowing how to interact correctly with the others. - The above does not affect the ability to dynamically add members. However in some cases it offends class design and in other cases it is a greatly welcomed ability. (...) bla bla we had that already - FIRST: Do we want a language that can be used by workgroups? - FIRST conclusion (for me): YES if we do not make the language more complex to everybody. Here i must repeat (just follow up the thread and did not remeber who wrote it): AN EXTENSION TO THE LANGUAGE CAN BE IGNORED by those who do - not like it - not understand it It would not be Java because in Java you have no procedural paradigm and therefore you are forced to know every little OO aspect in Java before beeing able to use any part of its api. In PHP oo is only a goodie that can be used so why not making it a good one? - SECOND: We want to integrate XML/SOAP (SRM) and so on: Does anybody who endores this (nearly all here do) believe this is of any sense when not allowing more than one programmer working on the same project? I mean hey both are very complex and it is nonsense believing those features can be used alone in acceptable time. - SECOND conclusion (for me): We need some more OO features. marcus -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:27:13AM -0500, Jason T. Greene wrote: IMO, one of the big reasons for having a powerful OO mode, and continually evolving php to have a bigger target than just a web programming language, is code re-usability. You do not need OO for this. OO just helps you to manage your namespaces better. The rest is just good coding practice and a little bit of organisation. Kristian -- Kristian Köhntopp, NetUSE AG, Dr.-Hell-Straße, D-24107 Kiel Tel: +49 431 386 435 00, Fax: +49 431 386 435 99 -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:27:13AM -0500, Jason T. Greene wrote: IMO, one of the big reasons for having a powerful OO mode, and continually evolving php to have a bigger target than just a web programming language, is code re-usability. You do not need OO for this. OO just helps you to manage your namespaces better. The rest is just good coding practice and a little bit of organisation. OO also helps with instancing, code organsiation, etc ... but thats not specific to more OO (as we are suggesting) ... thats also true to the existing OO capabilities PHP has. We are not asking for anything more than to extend PHP's OO capabilities (which is what this thread is all about). However you look at it - the rest of the points made on this list still stand. Extra OO does not detract from the purpose / goals of PHP nor the ZE. For census purposes (so I know weither Id be wasting my time writing a patch) can I get a karma rating (++/--) on adding extra OO capabilities reasons would also be nice (not to provoke yet more debate but to see peoples over all views). -- Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ADAM Software Systems Engineer First Creative Ltd -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2002 19:59 schrieb Dan Hardiker: I sit in many PHP channels (IRC), and observe many class-based PHP networks (php-classes.org is one I monitor closely) and can say definatly that the majority of PHP users want *more* OO capabilities in PHP. From a marketing POV, what most people want is NOT more OOP in PHP, but actually a hostable Java. PHP is everywhere and pretty much free, when it comes to webspace hosting. Java usually isn't, because it has certain requirements for its execution environment that cannot be met in cheap hosting environments. So when users ask for more OO in PHP, they usually want Java and Java capabilities for the price of their current PHP site, and a migration path towards this. Since there is no such thing, they end up trying to turn PHP into Java. Kristian -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2002 19:59 schrieb Dan Hardiker: I sit in many PHP channels (IRC), and observe many class-based PHP networks (php-classes.org is one I monitor closely) and can say definatly that the majority of PHP users want *more* OO capabilities in PHP. [..] So when users ask for more OO in PHP, they usually want Java and Java capabilities for the price of their current PHP site, and a migration path towards this. Since there is no such thing, they end up trying to turn PHP into Java. I disagree *very* strongly with this statement. When people ask for more OO they want more OO! Its like saying that if people wanted VC++ to be more OOed then they would just be wanting Delphi... which is just untrue. The masses are asking for more flexability and expanded capabilities - not to turn PHP into anything its not already. PHP is a partially OOed language currently, extending it into other OO areas (public/private/protected methods variables) is not altering the language structure, aim or purpose. What the masses are *not* asking for is for PHP to do things the java way. That has never been suggested or hinted at... anyone wanting this can go use Java. I dont want to use java for my current projects - there is JSP but it doesnt fit for the majority of the projects I do (right tool for the right job). Giving PHP extra OOP capabilities would extend what I can do with PHP and where I can use it. This isnt about cost of using PHP over Java its about the right tool for the right job to complete at the right speed. -- Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ADAM Software Systems Engineer First Creative Ltd -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
--- Dan Hardiker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Donnerstag, 6. Juni 2002 19:59 schrieb Dan Hardiker: I sit in many PHP channels (IRC), and observe many class-based PHP networks (php-classes.org is one I monitor closely) and can say definatly that the majority of PHP users want *more* OO capabilities in PHP. [..] So when users ask for more OO in PHP, they usually want Java and Java capabilities for the price of their current PHP site, and a migration path towards this. Since there is no such thing, they end up trying to turn PHP into Java. I disagree *very* strongly with this statement. When people ask for more OO they want more OO! Its like saying that if people wanted VC++ to be more OOed then they would just be wanting Delphi... which is just untrue. The masses are asking for more flexability and expanded capabilities - not to turn PHP into anything its not already. PHP is a partially OOed language currently, extending it into other OO areas (public/private/protected methods variables) is not altering the language structure, aim or purpose. What the masses are *not* asking for is for PHP to do things the java way. That has never been suggested or hinted at... anyone wanting this can go use Java. I dont want to use java for my current projects - there is JSP but it doesnt fit for the majority of the projects I do (right tool for the right job). Giving PHP extra OOP capabilities would extend what I can do with PHP and where I can use it. This isnt about cost of using PHP over Java its about the right tool for the right job to complete at the right speed. Ex-friggin-actly, i couldn't agree with this more. - brad __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
How much of C has been reused, and reused and reused again? There is no oo in stdlib. -Original Message- Code reusability is a psychological issue. You can reuse code in PHP 4, and it'll be even better in 5 - PEAR is a clear demonstration of this. Whether people actually end up reusing code depends on the way they code, very little does it depend on the language. -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
At 05:46 PM 6/7/2002, Joseph Tate wrote: How much of C has been reused, and reused and reused again? There is no oo in stdlib. Exactly. C is one of the easiest languages for code reuse, but it totally depends on your programming habits and skill. As a matter of fact, I find Java to be one of the most problematic languages for code reuse in certain cases. Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
At 06:14 PM 6/7/2002, Jason T. Greene wrote: True, I hear it is even possible to reuse code in COBOL : ) I believe that the ease of maintenance depends purely on the language. i.e. using a strictly procedural language for a large framework can be quite messy. Have you ever seen large libraries written in perl that consistently call require on a million files. PEAR is a good example of a framework that ran into a lot of limitations of the language, which ZE2 will provide a great deal of help in. I agree with everything you said, just thought it'd be cool to point that out :) Zeev -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
I believe the OO level we have in ZE2 is the upper limit of what a scripting language should have. There's no doubt in my mind that going beyond that is going to complicate the language beyond what our average users want. I would have to disagree to this statement extremly. It would not complicate the language as those not interested would just ignore the new options and go along as normal. (i.e. all methods and variables being public by default) I sit in many PHP channels (IRC), and observe many class-based PHP networks (php-classes.org is one I monitor closely) and can say definatly that the majority of PHP users want *more* OO capabilities in PHP. Interfaces provide a simple framework for expansive web scripts, which currently can only be botched with extends... and multiple inheritance would help my current PHP (web-based) project. If these features are too complex for you to understand - ignore them! In my opinion the demand is certainly there, if a subset of people dont want to use it - we're not asking them to. What the masses are calling for (and they obviously are with the frequency of this kind of post appearing) is the option to decide. Although Im no expert on the PHP source code and the underlying ZE - is it really that complex to please everyone and give a choice? [for those concerned about the proposed stuff having performance impacts - then make it a configure option... --with-more-oop (or whatever)] -- Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] ADAM Software Systems Engineer First Creative Ltd -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
A couple of months ago it was agreed on how to get multiple inheritance
like behavior in a way which could work with PHP. I just haven't had time
to implement it yet.
The talk was about aggregation of instances of classes with auto-proxy.
So you'd do something like:
class foo extends bar contains barbara, foobar {
}
$obj = new foo();
$obj-method(); /* would check foo and if method doesn't exist will
auto-proxy to objects barbara and foobar in that order whatever matches
first.*/
You could access the specific object by $obj-classname or $obj-barbara.
Try and find it in the archives.
Andi
At 06:59 PM 6/6/2002 +0100, Dan Hardiker wrote:
I believe the OO level we have in ZE2 is the upper limit
of what a scripting language should have. There's no doubt in my mind
that going beyond that is going to complicate the language beyond what
our average users want.
I would have to disagree to this statement extremly. It would not
complicate the language as those not interested would just ignore the new
options and go along as normal. (i.e. all methods and variables being
public by default)
I sit in many PHP channels (IRC), and observe many class-based PHP
networks (php-classes.org is one I monitor closely) and can say definatly
that the majority of PHP users want *more* OO capabilities in PHP.
Interfaces provide a simple framework for expansive web scripts, which
currently can only be botched with extends... and multiple inheritance
would help my current PHP (web-based) project. If these features are too
complex for you to understand - ignore them!
In my opinion the demand is certainly there, if a subset of people dont
want to use it - we're not asking them to. What the masses are calling for
(and they obviously are with the frequency of this kind of post appearing)
is the option to decide. Although Im no expert on the PHP source code and
the underlying ZE - is it really that complex to please everyone and give
a choice? [for those concerned about the proposed stuff having performance
impacts - then make it a configure option... --with-more-oop (or
whatever)]
--
Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
ADAM Software Systems Engineer
First Creative Ltd
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
Andi,
Before you go ahead with this I would like to discuss it some more too. I'm
wondering if we can fully support MI but i don't want to start this
conversation now.
btw: i like the contains better than aggergates.
- brad
--- Andi Gutmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A couple of months ago it was agreed on how to get multiple inheritance
like behavior in a way which could work with PHP. I just haven't had time
to implement it yet.
The talk was about aggregation of instances of classes with auto-proxy.
So you'd do something like:
class foo extends bar contains barbara, foobar {
}
$obj = new foo();
$obj-method(); /* would check foo and if method doesn't exist will
auto-proxy to objects barbara and foobar in that order whatever matches
first.*/
You could access the specific object by $obj-classname or $obj-barbara.
Try and find it in the archives.
Andi
At 06:59 PM 6/6/2002 +0100, Dan Hardiker wrote:
I believe the OO level we have in ZE2 is the upper limit
of what a scripting language should have. There's no doubt in my mind
that going beyond that is going to complicate the language beyond what
our average users want.
I would have to disagree to this statement extremly. It would not
complicate the language as those not interested would just ignore the new
options and go along as normal. (i.e. all methods and variables being
public by default)
I sit in many PHP channels (IRC), and observe many class-based PHP
networks (php-classes.org is one I monitor closely) and can say definatly
that the majority of PHP users want *more* OO capabilities in PHP.
Interfaces provide a simple framework for expansive web scripts, which
currently can only be botched with extends... and multiple inheritance
would help my current PHP (web-based) project. If these features are too
complex for you to understand - ignore them!
In my opinion the demand is certainly there, if a subset of people dont
want to use it - we're not asking them to. What the masses are calling for
(and they obviously are with the frequency of this kind of post appearing)
is the option to decide. Although Im no expert on the PHP source code and
the underlying ZE - is it really that complex to please everyone and give
a choice? [for those concerned about the proposed stuff having performance
impacts - then make it a configure option... --with-more-oop (or
whatever)]
--
Dan Hardiker [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
ADAM Software Systems Engineer
First Creative Ltd
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
--
PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
Andi Gutmans wrote: The talk was about aggregation of instances of classes with auto-proxy. I think that's called delegation, not aggregation. Have a look at what the JavaLab guys at my University are doing under the term delegation: http://javalab.cs.uni-bonn.de/research/darwin/ and http://javalab.cs.uni-bonn.de/research/darwin/delegation_eng.html It'd be cool to have something like that in PHP :-) -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [Zend Engine 2] PHP in the future
Aggregation sometimes involves delegation. The 'parent' object delegates requests to the right aggregated objects (in other cases, the 'parent' object returns its aggregated objects and you use them directly). Zeev At 10:43 PM 6/6/2002, Sebastian Bergmann wrote: Andi Gutmans wrote: The talk was about aggregation of instances of classes with auto-proxy. I think that's called delegation, not aggregation. Have a look at what the JavaLab guys at my University are doing under the term delegation: http://javalab.cs.uni-bonn.de/research/darwin/ and http://javalab.cs.uni-bonn.de/research/darwin/delegation_eng.html It'd be cool to have something like that in PHP :-) -- Sebastian Bergmann http://sebastian-bergmann.de/http://phpOpenTracker.de/ Did I help you? Consider a gift: http://wishlist.sebastian-bergmann.de/ -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Development Mailing List http://www.php.net/ To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
