> On Jun 29, 2024, at 7:14 AM, Rob Landers <rob@bottled.codes> wrote: >> You say it is impractical, you claim millions of users, but you don't >> address why the specific features are impractical. >> >> They are no more impractical than any other new language features PHP has >> added in recent years (and I am not being critical of what has been added, >> to be clear.) > > So far, nobody has shown how it is practical -- that is on the person > proposing the RFC. Ideally, this would be it, you show why it is useful, how > to use it, etc. But it is also political. You need to show why people would > use it, why people would rewrite their entire application to use it (if the > RFC calls for it), and so far, nobody has shown that other than "there are > packages!"
The problem with your assertion is that "impractical" is not a criticism that can be objectively determined to be true or false. It is just a pejorative used to stifle discussion which is why I responded to it as a did. Yes I agree that it is no proposers to show people why to use it, but it is unfair to proposers to give criticism that can only be classified as opinion. > You need to show why people would use it, why people would rewrite their > entire application to use it (if the RFC calls for it), and so far, nobody > has shown that other than "there are packages!" It seems you have not read any of the several other emails I have written to this list in the past several days that do far more than say "there are packages!" Please read them in full before making such further equivalently dismissive claims. > I cringed at this. There is no direct lineage though they borrow come syntax > from C, and if you want to push it, you might as well say they're descendants > of B which borrowed syntax from BCPL which borrowed syntax from CPL which > borrowed it's syntax from ALGOL... eh, no, these languages are not related to > each other. Inspired, maybe. Aside from your cringing, how does your pedanticism here move the discussion forward in a positive manner? > No, PHP and Go are nothing like each other. With a bit of finangling, you can > actually port JavaScript line-for-line to PHP, but not the other way around. > If anything, JavaScript is more like PHP than PHP is more like JavaScript. Again, you are making a statement that cannot be objectively proven true or false, and frankly I cannot see any way in which your argument here matters to discussion of modules. > I don't see any gate-keeping here, Those who are inside the gates never do. I called out gatekeeping because he argued the genetic fallacy[1] for dismissing the proposed ideas rather than using objective criticism of the features proposed. > just people challenging assumptions and pushing for the feature to be better > than it is currently being proposed. Yet the challenges are premised on opinions and fallacies instead of objectively challenging the proposed features. I am happy to defend against proposal against arguments that can be objectively evaluated, but having my arguments challenged "because they come from a language I don't know" means that my assumptions are not actually being challenged and the criticisms made are based on the challenger's pre-existing lack of comfort with the assumptions while making it appear readers the criticism is objective. And that IMO is no way to improve a language. -Mike [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
