As I said, I believe Unicode won't be the only difference between the versions.
About your p.s., I am not looking for you to value me. Andi > -----Original Message----- > From: Jani Taskinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 4:17 AM > To: Andi Gutmans > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > Subject: RE: [PHP-DEV] What is the use of "unicode.semantics" > in PHP 6? > > I agree totally on giving options. The users have the option > to either use PHP 5 (non-unicode) or PHP 6 (PHP 5 + unicode).. > > So essentially we're just forking here, nothing special about that. > (just that it happens inside the project, between two major versions) > > --Jani > > p.s. Andi, the outsiders like myself value people on what > they actually commit, everything you do behind the curtains > means nothing to us. > > > On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 20:52 -0700, Andi Gutmans wrote: > > I very much agree with Rasmus that giving our users the option is > > extremely valuable. > > > > Unicode support is useful to some people but I think it's a > mistake to > > force it down everyone's throat. Forget the fact that it will be > > considerably slower and eat up more memory than PHP 5 & 4, > but there > > will also be some serious BC issues and idiosyncrasies which a huge > > part of our community (arguably over 90%) just don't care about. > > > > Some people here said that we weren't successful in keeping > BC between > > PHP 5 and PHP 4. Whoever said that must not have migrated > applications > > between the versions. It took very little effort to do so. > Most people > > I know did it in a matter of hours for sizeable code bases > and in fact > > most time was spent on regression testing which would need > to be done > > anyway. > > > > I also think that the fact that we *do* still support PHP 4 is a > > strength and not a weakness of the PHP project (as much as I'd like > > everyone to migrate to PHP 5). Sure maybe that gave less > incentive to > > upgrade which is a bit of a PITA for the PHP eco-system. On > the other > > hand look at technologies who didn't do that. Microsoft > with VB, DNA, > > DCOM and some of their other technologies are good examples. Every > > version their users would suffer time and time again, often > having to > > completely migrate their investment because they were not > officially > > supported anymore. Look at how Microsoft are looking to > ditch XP early > > in the process. I don't think we want to follow that path. The fact > > that we do our best not to break BC and are very careful > when doing it > > is a HUGE plus for us. Not to mention still doing security and > > critical fixes for PHP 4. > > > > Btw, on the "if (UG(unicode)" issue. That's really a bunch of BS. > > There'll be no problems once we get into optimizing Unicode mode to > > make sure we take good advantage of CPU branch predicition (with > > compilers help). We are intentionally not trying to do premature > > optimizations right now but rather make sure we get the end result > > that we want from a functionality point of view, and the optimize > > according to what the real bottlenecks are. I have always > been against > > premature optimizations and I can pretty much promise that the "if > > (UG(unicode))" is not going to be an issue. It's a bit more > code yes. But I think it's worth it. > > > > We had a lot of discussions on this issue within the core > development > > team and I think there was a strong enough case to keep > things this way. > > If we are proven wrong down the road then there's always > PHP 6.5 or 7 > > where we can nuke the 8bit mode. But my guess is that at > least 80%+ of > > PHP 6 users will not run in Unicode mode. For many there's just not > > sufficient reason to do so. > > > > Andi > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rasmus Lerdorf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 9:05 AM > > > To: Jeremy Privett > > > Cc: internals@lists.php.net > > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] What is the use of "unicode.semantics" > > > in PHP 6? > > > > > > Jeremy Privett wrote: > > > > But, let's look at this situation from another angle. What if > > > > unicode.semantics becomes the next magic_quotes or > > > safe_mode, and is > > > > ALWAYS OFF in 95%+ of PHP installations? All of the > work you did > > > > to add unicode support was WASTED on this presumption that if > > > you don't > > > > have BC, no one's going to use it. Whereas the opposite > is clearly > > > > true, in this case. If you have BC, it'll get used simply > > > because it > > > > works with old code, but the main thing that changed about the > > > > language will never be touched. > > > > > > I actually don't have a problem with 95% of PHP 6 installations > > > turning off Unicode support and this being the default > setting for > > > ISP's. > > > > > > Full Unicode support in an application is a big commitment and it > > > will take quite a bit of work. I just don't think that > many people > > > will invest the time and effort into doing this, but at the same > > > time there will be large applications and services that have full > > > control over their server settings that will make use of > it. Think > > > Flickr, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. > > > > > > If enough people think it is a good idea to remove the > switch we can > > > do it, but we have to realize that everything we improve in PHP 6 > > > will mostly be for the benefit of these large dedicated > applications > > > and the regular Joe User on a shared server will never see these > > > them. > > > > > > -Rasmus > > > > > > -- > > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To > unsubscribe, > > > visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > > > > > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
