> While HHVM is a very interesting project, their use case is pretty > specific and narrow, and, as I understand, connected to a single > application (albeit running huge traffic numbers). So I'm not sure > copying whatever they do is necessarily good for PHP as a whole. HHVM > case is basically static compilation of monolithic application, as far > as I remember, which is not how PHP is usually run. It is true that such > mode negates many arguments against static typing, but it negates them > only for specific narrow case of HHVM, not for PHP as a whole. >
Incorrect on a few points: 1) HHVM isn't just running FB. A number of sites have either already started using HHVM, or intend to soon. 2) The "static compilation" description is grossly outdated information. HHVM behaves the same way as PHP when it comes to running an application. There's an optional "precompile to bytecode" step, but that's a minor optimization overall. In general, you just point it at your webroot and it compiles to bytecode on demand (just like PHP) caches the compiled bytecode (just like APC or ZO+), and JITs to machine code as needed. 3) We mitigate the arguments against strict typing in other ways than you think, evidently. :) I won't suggest that PHP should follow HHVM, if anything I'll usually (and have frequently) rallied for the other way around. In this case, however, as with Generators, I think that we should endeavor to keep the implementations close together by the most appropriate means. I don't want two versions of PHP syntax. -Sara
