> > Arvids wrote "I don't think C sees a lot of development any more, so it > makes sense to move towards C++."
Yeah he wrote that right after "PHP has C as core and has allowed C++ for extensions. Expanding that support is a no-brainer, especially since modern C++ has stepped up in major ways". That is also known as context. I could be wrong as I am not an expert in either C or Zig, but from what I > understand from others who have adopted Zig for C code bases it would not > be a huge investment at all. Which is why I proposed it. Well the source code is right there, go ahead and explore adopting Zig and feel free to report back with your findings. Until then, I think we should stick to something that has been battle tested over the past 30 years. > Again, I will reiterate that these proposed changes will not affect the > current course of PHP. Development will go on as usual and any bugs > introduced by this proposal will be contained to C++ extensions interacting > with the code. C devs can act like this doesn't even exist because as far > as the C compiler is concerned, it doesn't. On the other hand C++ devs > won't have to keep reinventing the wheel whenever they have to build an > extension with C++. What is a php extension if not a wrapper for a C/C++ > lib? > > > > IF I wanted PHP to be implemented in C++, I would simply fork it. How > many thousand RFCs do you think it will take to get anything reasonable > done? I'm baffled that I actually have to convince y'all to IMPROVE the > current support for C++, but calm down, no one wants you to quit. > > Again, I did not comment on your proposal pro nor con. Fair enough. > P.S. BTW, didn't you already say this conversation was a waste of your > time and imply that you were done with the thread? Then why would I be > replying to you? > Nah, I meant the specific conversation with Pierre Joye, it wasn't going anywhere. I stand by all my points so why would I just leave because of some confused folks? Cheers, Lanre.
