On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Nate Abele <nate.ab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > At 17:51 13/09/2010, Gustavo Lopes wrote: > > >> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 16:28:47 +0100, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> At 16:39 13/09/2010, Pierre Joye wrote: > > >>>> You are not serioulsy suggesting to use phpdoc for runtime > annotation > > >>>> support? Are you? > > >>> > > >>> I actually am (either that or get what you want done in some other > > >>> way). It's a rare enough use case that I think it's a very > reasonable > > >>> compromise. The disadvantages of adding a whole new branch of > syntax, > > >>> for this rare use case, far outweigh its advantages - IMHO. > > >> > > >> Rare use case? Have you seen any recent Java framework? Or Java EE 6? > Or > > >> design by contract in C#? A declarative programming style can be very > > >> handy. > > > > > > > > Framework code (as in code that actually goes into a framework, not > code > > > that uses a framework) represents a tiny percentage of the PHP codebase > > > at large. Most of it is application code. > > > > > > > > > You misunderstood me. When I say the frameworks use annotation I don't > > mean they use annotations in their own implementation (that's not > > particularly relevant for the reason you present). > > > > What I mean is that the frameworks recognize annotations the application > > code has so that the framework user can do stuff like injecting objects, > > run methods in transactions or check post-conditions in a declarative > > fashion, by adding annotations. > > > > By the way, you ignored the rest of the e-mail. > > > > How do you evaluate the complexity/return of features such as annotations > > with that of e.g. LSB? Why are they not adequate for PHP, but may be for > > other languages? > > I do not understand this. > > I see no one other than Symfony / Doctrine people pushing for this > annotations patch. > > How can this special-purpose feature (which would add entirely new language > semantics in the form of an embedded micro-language) even be open for > discussion, when other, more generally-useful RFCs like > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/shortsyntaxforarrays were shot down on the basis > that they were hard to read and confusing for new developers? > > Sorry, but I don't see how this is even remotely close to being appropriate > for PHP. Maybe I'm missing something. :-) > > Thanks, > - Nate > > It's the same as Zeev said: "The fact we have complex components in PHP is no excuse to add more complexity to the language. It's not a binary state, with PHP "already being complex", so we can add as much complexity as we want. Complexity accumulates." The fact that we rejecteded better features in PHP is no excuse to reject good ideas from the... at least without a discussion which is just happening. Tyrael
