Stas,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com>wrote: > Hi! > > > Sure. Here you go. Here are two examples: > > > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ > > This is a nice text, but practical meaning of it is kind of unclear. > Even then, applying it to what we have now with annotations, I can see > they violate at least #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7 :) And possibly #17 too :) > Now, I'm not saying we need to accept exactly such rules, and I see how > you may disagree with my application of it - but that's exactly my > point. I do not see how having something like this would improve what > you want to improve. > It would provide context. You saying that annotations violate #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7 would be a *PERFECT* argument. It puts context into what's wrong with the proposal, and not some ambiguous saying... > Perl one is more practical, but it is a statement of opinion - even > though very influential one of a very smart man. Would you be willing to > accept such statement if it says something that you personally disagree > with? And out of many different opinion, how we choose one that deserves > to be "official", making all other ones "officially wrong"? Absolutely. I want A vision, not necessarily MY vision. I want a vision the majority can agree with (considering the current state of the dev teams. As far as how we choose, I would suggest using the RFC system. Neither are you. Yet I am not telling people to shut up, and you are. > Curious. I said to shut up with the rhetoric, not shut up in general. Additionally, replies like the following ARE telling people to shut up IMHO: http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=135083835232016&w=2 >> Hello, list. I want to propose generics. > Please no. If you need Java, you know where to find it. Java has a set > of great tools, great books, great community. And it's completely free. > Anybody who needs Java can just do it. I see no need to turn PHP into Java. That's the type of thing I want to get rid of... > that we can measure things against. Therefore, there is no such thing as > > a "good fit for PHP" outside our own personal opinions. It may seem like > > I believe there is. Each language has a philosophy and internal > coherence, or at least it should strive to have it. In fact, PHP is > frequently criticized for being lacking on this front, and we do not > have anything written down formally, but I think it still exists. > Moreover, if it does not, and PHP is nothing but a hodgepodge of > somewhat useful tools without any coherent thought and system behind > them - it would be very bad for PHP project. And if it does exist, then > there are things which align with it, and there are things which do not. s:/philosophy/vision/ and that's basically what I'm asking for. It does exist informally as 1000 different versions right now (one or 4 per person on this list). And I do currently believe that PHP development currently IS nothing but a hodgepodge (how you describe it). I feel it's been that way since at least 5.3 when progress on 6 stalled. Since then, it feels like things became completely disjointed. The RFC and voting process was a sign of this disjoint environment. I want to fix the underlying problem and give the project direction again. > > I'm not saying not to express that you think the direction is wrong. > > What I'm saying is to express it in a better way than "PHP is not Java" > > and "I don't ever want to see this". Those are terminal statements. > > I made kilobytes if not megabytes of comments on this topic for the past > years. So if you try to latch on one phrase which was a part of bigger > response and make it sound as if I never explained what I mean and > nobody else did the same, repeatedly, over the years - this is just > wrong. I did explain and I keep explaining it. You may not agree but > please do not make it sound as if I only actually said what I mean > instead of droning on with "PHP is not Java", maybe then you could > understand it... I said it many times - the syntax proposed is very > complex and hardly comprehensible, it creates a separate sub-language > inside PHP incompatible with what the rest of PHP is doing, it is not > readable and it is helpful only in very small subset of PHP uses. I am > not opposed to the idea in general, but I am opposed to the level of > complexity - both syntactical and conceptual - it currently involves. And I appreciate (even if I usually disagree) the content you contribute. BUt I can't stand when you go on those terminal remarks (PHP is not Java, I never want to see this). They are demoralizing, deflating and do nothing but shut people down. That's why even in your large reply I picked out one phrase. Because that one phrase was more powerful than the rest of your reply... Anthony
