At 10:19 AM 6/11/2002, Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
>Alex Black wrote:
> >> class foo aggregates bar {
> >> }
> >
> > I think that is a nice solution.
>
> It's not, because it's static. Multiple iheritance is flawed, because
> it's static.
That's hardly considered a flaw almost anywhere, even in
"Stig S. Bakken" wrote:
> 1. Interfaces / multiple inheritance
> [snip]
I totally agree that those two don't belong into PHP.
> class foo aggregates bar {
> }
Please see my other reply (RfC on Delegation).
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-bergmann.de/ http://phpO
Alex Black wrote:
>> class foo aggregates bar {
>> }
>
> I think that is a nice solution.
It's not, because it's static. Multiple iheritance is flawed, because
it's static.
Have a look at my RfC for delegation:
RfC: http://cvs.php.net/co.php/ZendEngine2/RFCs/004.txt
Further readin
> Hi,
>
> I have promised myself to not get into this discussion for a week now,
> but the smell of dead horse overwhelmed me, so here goes...
heh.
> class foo aggregates bar {
> }
I think that is a nice solution.
> 2. "Optional" strong typing
>
> When people say that being able to do
>
>
Hi,
I have promised myself to not get into this discussion for a week now,
but the smell of dead horse overwhelmed me, so here goes...
I am "guilty" of a lot of OO use in PHP related to PEAR, I think OO is a
good thing when used right, but if not.. well, as Ken said at LinuxTag,
"here, have some
At 05:02 AM 6/8/2002 +0100, Michael Dransfield wrote:
>At 02:40 08/06/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>> > There are two reasons we repeat the 'PHP is not Java mantra':
>> >
>> > (a) Many of those requesting these changes actually DO want to see PHP
>> > as a Java with PHPish syntax.
>>
>>Anyone wanting P
At 02:40 08/06/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> > There are two reasons we repeat the 'PHP is not Java mantra':
> >
> > (a) Many of those requesting these changes actually DO want to see PHP
> > as a Java with PHPish syntax.
>
>Anyone wanting PHP to be a "simple" or "more flexable" Java is barking up
>th
Dan Hardiker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless Im missing the mark - for which I appologise. The PHP Group as a
> whole seems to have mixed feelings on this issue - could there be some
> form of concensus so that I (and many others on this list) can work out if
> the requested extra functionalit
> eg: simple db-based shopping cart web site? use PHP... complex internet
> backing system? use Java. Easy!
Use PHP! Easier.
Look, I've built hideously complex things with PHP - commerce systems that
do stream encryption on a per-field basis, complex interconnected process
stuff, large APIs, eve
> There are two reasons we repeat the 'PHP is not Java mantra':
>
> (a) Many of those requesting these changes actually DO want to see PHP
> as a Java with PHPish syntax.
Anyone wanting PHP to be a "simple" or "more flexable" Java is barking up
the wrong tree... in fact all of the people I know
There are two reasons we repeat the 'PHP is not Java mantra':
(a) Many of those requesting these changes actually DO want to see PHP as a
Java with PHPish syntax.
(b) Java is (so far) the best implemented OO language out there that's
actually being used. It symbolizes the extreme OO world, if
11 matches
Mail list logo
