I agree with your well-thought-out remarks overall. However (and you knew
a "however" was coming lol), by making these types optional, we would be
allowing full backwards-compatibility without alienating non-CS developers,
since they would be able to continue writing the same code they do now.
Likewise, and I know I keep going back to this, PHP 5's stronger
implementation of OO did not break backwards compatibility or scare away
procedural developers who are not versed on OO concepts. I would cite that
as precedent for this; in that, if done correctly and with great care, this
can be implemented without trampling on PHP's KISS principles IMHO.
--Kris
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Richard Lynch <c...@l-i-e.com> wrote:
> On Wed, February 29, 2012 7:16 pm, John Crenshaw wrote:
> > I'm beginning to think that the type hinting question is too closely
> > related to the dirty secrets of type juggling to resolve them
> > separately. You may have to either discard consistency, or else fix
> > the problem of silent bizarre conversions at the same time ('foo'==0,
> > '123abc'=123). Fixing the conversions is a BC break though.
>
> [short version]
> One man's "fixing" is another man's "feature" :-)
>
> Old hands can now hit delete while I wax philosophical.
>
> [long version]
>
> PHP does the type juggling because HTTP data is all string. It's a
> feature, because PHP's main purpose was to process HTTP input.
> [Yes, I know you did not dispute this. It's just foreshadowing...]
>
> Once one accepts the premise that automatic type-juggling is "good",
> the idea that (int) "123 abc" turns into 123 may seem incredibly
> "wrong" or "right" depending on how useful one has found it.
>
> I have found it useful, and others have as well, to the point that we
> don't consider it something to "fix" but a "feature"
>
> Obviously, others disagree. And that's okay. We "get" that some
> disagree, and even why some disagree. We've all coded in C, C++, C#,
> Forth, Modula 2, Lisp, PL/1, and many more, collectively.
>
> We choose PHP, at times, because it is the way it is, as "broken" as
> it may seem to others. And they are legion. One only needs to review
> blogs and mailing lists of fans of other strictly-typed languages to
> see this.
>
> But Breaking Compatibility with something so deeply ingrained in the
> culture and language, which goes back consistently at least to PHP3,
> and probably PHP/FI, is a non-starter.
>
> There are probably literally millions of scripts that will break "out
> there." That's simply unacceptable, and I trust you understand why
> that is so.
>
> You might consider those scripts poor programming practice. We all do.
> But PHP is the language of the unwashed masses, and that was, and is,
> part of why it is hugely popular. Somebody who barely understands
> programming can pound away at the keyboard and write a bloody useful
> web application, breaking 10,000 Computer Science rules along the way.
>
> It's duct tape and bailing wire. And we love it for that.
>
> If the app is useful enough, it might even get cleaned up. Or just
> more duct tape and bailing wire is applied, more likely. :-)
>
> Even at a major release, PHP has, by and large, strived to remain
> Backwards Compatible, unless a VERY compelling reason was presented.
>
> A vocal minority, or even a majority, of developers does not qualify.
> That's pretty much why the Core Devs' "veto" power exists.
>
> Some of the proposals and ideas lately have adhered to that concept of
> not breaking Backwards Compatibility. Others have not, and those are
> just non-starters.
>
> But PHP core has always had the mantra "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
>
> If one wants a complex language, PHP is simply not going to be it, and
> virtually all of these proposals do not fit the KISS principle, at a
> fundamental level of "Any idiot can read halfway decent code and
> puzzle out what it does in less than a day."
>
> This is a Religious Issue, a personal preference, a philosophical
> ideal, etc. Right or wrong, it is what it is, by choice, by the core
> developers who have put years worth of effort into it.
>
> Please don't read this as "go away" or a restatement of the arguments
> that have been labeled as circular before. I am merely trying to
> explain why PHP is the way it is, at a 10,000 foot level, and why so
> many core devs are resistant to the changes being proposed.
>
> I highly respect all the efforts and the alternative philosophical
> differences, and even the guiding principles of Computer Science
> driving them. PHP is just not the language for Computer Science types,
> for the most part. It's for the masses.
>
> Some CS types like it in certain situations, which is all to the good,
> or it would be a total mess :-) We embrace its "flaws" and ugly hacks
> because, like it or not, "it works" for what it's designed to do.
>
> --
> 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
>
>
