I can honestly see a use for it, much as there's a use for having both "include" and "require". It may not be a critical distinction, but it sounds like some people at least would enjoy the added flexibility.
If we did only go with one, I would want it to be the "strong" one. But again, I think both is the best approach as it helps to bridge many of these diverging viewpoints on the subject. --Kris On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Michael Morris <dmgx.mich...@gmail.com>wrote: > I don't think the strong/weak stuff is necessary at all. Either a > programmer cares about datatype or they don't and the vast, vast > majority won't. > > Declaring a variable's datatype should have the effect of locking that > variable's datatype down and not allowing it to switch types with the > sole exception of NULL. > > Trying to declare a degree of strength to the typing is severe > overkill. I recognize that I suggested this in my first proposal, but > at this point I'm opposed to it. > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think that's a bit of a stretch, to say the least. The same argument > > could be made that PHP 5's introduction of stronger OO implementation > would > > have scared this person away. The fact is, we don't know that either of > > them would have. For one thing, I doubt he monitored the PHP Internals > > list; if he had, that in and of itself would have been enough to scare > him > > away lol. If strict typing was the norm, then yeah it probably would > have > > scared him off. But adding optional typing, which is what we've been > > discussing here? I seriously doubt it. > > > > --Kris > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Richard Lynch <c...@l-i-e.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, February 28, 2012 3:31 am, Arvids Godjuks wrote: > >> > I really liked what the O'Raily wrote here: > >> > > >> > http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html > >> > >> Please note that the author was a bass player in a band wanting to > >> sell CDs online when the five (5) choices were the same > >> brick-and-mortar major label distributors who wouldn't take his CD as > >> he wasn't on a major label. > >> > >> He examined the options, and PHP was the only one that didn't make his > >> head spin. > >> > >> His act of creating a single page to sell his CD online went viral, > >> and he accidentally built a multi-million dollar company because of > >> that. > >> > >> Since he'd never set out to make the money, just to help his friends > >> (and they told 2 friends, and they told 2 friends...) he always > >> tracked success not by not, nor gross, but by dollars paid out to > >> artists[1] > >> > >> He eventually sold the company to a trust fund that goes to charity > >> when he dies, and lives very comfortably off the interest, since he > >> lost interest in running the company when it just got too routine.[2] > >> > >> If he had seen this strict/weak/strong stuff in PHP, that online CD > >> store for the indie artists would probably not have existed for quite > >> a long time, if ever. > >> > >> He's actually been online a long time, and is worth learning from, > >> even if he never actually became a Real Programmer (tm), in his own > >> words. > >> > >> PS > >> You can find many conversations between him and me on the old, old, > >> old PHP list before the split of the lists into -general etc. > >> > >> [1] http://www.cdbaby.com/About > >> [2] http://sivers.org/trust > >> > >> -- > >> brain cancer update: > >> http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/search/label/brain%20tumor > >> Donate: > >> > >> > https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FS9NLTNEEKWBE > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > >
