On 25/01/2020 00:12, Mike Schinkel wrote:
So saying "use a static analyzer" is IMO just pointing out an overall
weakness that PHP can't automatically do static analysis on its own.
I'd just like to repeat that you and Rasmus are in agreement here. He
didn't say "PHP doesn't need to change because static analyzers exist",
he said:
> it would be amazing to have a static analyzer built into PHP
> ... but that is a huge task and goes way beyond just this particular
check.
Choosing whether that analysis runs automatically during server startup,
or as a separate command-line script, is just one detail among many. It
probably wouldn't make much difference to the rest of the analysis code,
and it might even make sense for it to support both modes. For instance,
it might be optional for command-line scripts, so you could have options
for "analyse and run", "run only", and "analyse only".
> One of the main strengths of PHP — and IMO one of the reasons for its
incredibly marketshare — is the ease with which PHP code can be written,
tested, and deployed.
> And that ease translated to ubiquity.
> Adding a recommended build step to that in order to gain correctness
weakens that value proposition and threatens future ubiquity as other
language improve.
Yes, the convenience of having something run automatically is definitely
worth considering, as long as it doesn't introduce new delays and rules
that get in people's way.
It partly depends what kind of checks were being done, I guess, and
therefore how much time it would take to run, and how much of a project
it would need to analyse at once.
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins (né Collins)
[IMSoP]
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
