On 15/06/2024 15:40, Bilge wrote:
That's all quite interesting, but I didn't get a good sense of why the
idea was rejected
I haven't re-read the threads in full, so this is mostly from old
memories. And please note I am not saying which of these views I agree
with, just attempting to summarise them.
Common arguments against:
- Static properties are a form of global state, and that's something
widely advised against
- Static classes without any properties would be the same as putting
functions and constants in a namespace, which we can already do
Counter-arguments to the above:
- People do it in practice anyway, so why not have a more standard way
of writing it
- Functions can't be autoloaded, but static classes can (unfortunately
this is a hard problem, at least in part due to the design decision 15
years ago where unqualified names fall back to the global namespace)
rather than fall back on the opinions of many who are mostly absent
among those polled nine years ago, I'd rather get a sense of the
current sentiment of those present today.
This line of thinking always makes me uneasy. It lends undue weight to
*who* made decisions, and not enough to *why*.
Inevitably, personal opinions do have an impact on decisions, but we
should always be aiming to weigh the arguments for and against. In a
way, it's like the jury in a court: the system works on the assumption
that any group of voters would reach the same verdict.
However long ago the discussion started, we shouldn't have to go over
the same ground again and again. We should look back at what has already
been raised, and think about what's changed, or what additional points
weren't considered.
Regards,
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
