Hi! > 1) HHVM isn't just running FB. A number of sites have either already started using HHVM, or intend to soon.
Were could I read about those? > 2) The "static compilation" description is grossly outdated information. I guess my knowledge about HHVM is a bit out of date, which is no wonder as I wasn't following latest developments for some time. Could you send a link where I (and everybody interested of course :) could read about the current state of affairs? > 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. I don't think whatever HHVM does without input from PHP community should be any argument for any change in PHP. If it is good for PHP, it can stand on its own merit, if it's not, then the fact that HHVM team did it for some internal reasons that we do not know can not be an argument. If we want a common PHP syntax that will be followed by different implementations, it's a great idea, but it can not start with "we already did it, so you have to do it too". I don't want many versions of PHP syntax either, but I don't think HHVM team should be the one deciding how the one version looks like. If they use syntax that is good (I think this specific one is not, but that's beside the point, as it is only my personal opinion) it can and should be argued on its own merits, not on the argument that it is in HHVM. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
