On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > On 07/07/14 12:31, Pierre Joye wrote: >> I seriously hope that you take 2015 as pure example here. As I see no >> remote chance to be ready next year. PHPNG is a huge stack of >> undocumented perf patches far from being ready, APIs &code cleanup did >> not even begin, and the existing APIs are even more ugly. This is not >> going to be a small task, besides other things that we may like to >> have in the next major version. A 2 years development period sounds >> much more realistic to me. > > If that is a realistic roadmap, then what also needs to be added is just > what happens with the PHP5 in the meantime. From my own view, some > elements of 'PHP6' are still overdue, but if it will be yet another > couple of years then should we be looking at an interim solution for > 'bigint' and unicode? While reworking the entire code base to give a > performance improvement is a perfectly sensible long term plan it > sidesteps the 'problems' that PHPNext should ideally address. There are > perhaps two conflicting paths here?
I am skeptical on bigint in the engine given what is possible now in gmp. But yes, phpng is also a problem as it creates a total new code base and barely blocks any other improvements. Why? Except that bigint thing, I do not see many people trying to add stuff based on phpng at this point, it is a moving target and will move a lot in the next months as well. But this is a topic for another thread, this one being about the version number and this exact RFC. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
