On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi, > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Zeev Suraski <z...@zend.com> wrote: > > > I stand by my statement that I'm > > sure a great deal of users (my guesstimate - the majority) would happily > > upgrade to PHP.NEXT even if the huge performance gains were the only > thing > > there. > > Internals code cleanup is very very important point (more and more custom > extensions are being > internally developed, be OSS or not), our APIs and implemenation are a > mess, we all know that. A cleanup is long due, since the php 4 to 5 > move. > This is the opportunity to do the cleanup now, based on phpng branch. Since the branch is pulic on Github, how is development secret? With Zend, Nikita and laurence putting so much time into this, I fail to see how it would work to notify everyone of all the changes they are doing. As with every big project you have to put time into following its progress. I agree though that Zend (Zeev, Dimitry) could improve the RFC with a little more details, its focussing a lot on performance. As i understood Nikita and laurence they are already improving it based on the first prototype from month ago. Honestly, if Nikita says converting his extensions improved the API a lot then this is a good sign for me already. > > The other important parts are things like type hinting for scalar, to > match the class type hinting, getter/setter (100% positive feedback to > do what we proposed in the related RFC), object like methods for > array/string, keeping BC with the existing APIs but providing cleaner > userfriendlier APIs, etc. It is basically what we can find in the > ideas page about php6, a page I created months ago and began to > discuss. These discussions happened here, publically, and you > (phpng's) never replied to any of them. This is what we should discuss > now, not tomorrow, not when phpng is merged (if it ever happens). This > is what allows us to do an informed guess for a possible release cycle > for php-next. I will post a proposal for a timetable, something that > could fit for both sides. Do not expect it to match your one year > requirement, but it won't be three years either. > I think internal refactoring is exactly the reason to move from 5 to 6/7 and not necessarily end user facing changes. i wouldn't mind starting type hinting, getter/setter or any other discussion again once a 6.0/7.0 is out. This has worked for PHP since 5.3, 5.4, 5.5. I'd rather just take the performance gains, given that PHP as a language just works(tm), additional features are nice, but not having them is not a show stopper and shouldn't block something as big as phpng. > > Cheers, > -- > Pierre > > @pierrejoye | http://www.libgd.org > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
