On Sat, 25 Oct 2014, Joe Watkins wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-24 at 23:06 -0400, Derick Rethans wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2014, Bob Weinand wrote: > > > > > Commit: 2bcac53bca8ea82d661f057b6d9ff3c7c84f05a7 > > > Author: Bob Weinand <bobw...@hotmail.com> Fri, 24 Oct 2014 > > > 19:29:50 +0200 > > > Parents: 53560ca06b333b71883269091f7d74c0a25e087b > > > c03ac47bafd0ea55055a2f3d4de0bc6bb4d98d8d > > > Branches: master > > > > > > Link: > > > http://git.php.net/?p=php-src.git;a=commitdiff;h=2bcac53bca8ea82d661f057b6d9ff3c7c84f05a7 > > > > > > Log: > > > Made phpdbg compatible with new engine > > > > <snip> > > > AM sapi/phpdbg/xml.md > > > > Although this patch does make it work with PHP 7, it also does do > > something absolutely different: it reinvents a wheel by coming up > > with a new XML protocol for debugging. > > > > So far I've been silent on PHPDBG, but seriously, is it really not > > possible to cooperate instead of reimplementating something that > > already exists? PHPDBG is difficult to use with its odd command line > > "commands". And then I haven't even spoken about the pretentious > > "awesomesauce" on http://phpdbg.com/ — a domain that's not even > > under the PHP group's control. > > A few weeks ago, I was at a conference where you told a room filled > with hundreds of developers that phpdbg was no good, because you don't > know how to use it.
I was being polite. I should have told them it is useles for any of our users, instead of blaming it (wrongly) on my own ineptitude. > This is a strange sort of silence, and does not invite us to > co-operate. Neither does calling internals people "dicks" or "knobs". > When you invented dbgp there were other protocols in existence, There indeed where, but none of them were either open, or supporting more than one language. As that was the goal, the people from ActiveState—which *still, ten years later* have the best debugger frontend—and I sat around a table and implemented a language-agnostic debugging protocol. Used by Xdebug, and their debuggers for perl, python, tcl, ruby, and XSLT. > not sure why we are expected to reuse a protocol. Because DBGp is virtually a standard in the PHP world. > It so happens that the phpstorm guys working on integration seemed > keen on something new. I don't see the problem in that. If the only > reason it exists is for projects like phpstorm and they are actually > going to put time into trying something new, then why the hell not. Well, if you'd have used DBGp, they wouldn't have to do any work. > I'm not sure why it matters what kind of language we use on > phpdbg.com, not sure why you think it should be under the control of > the php group either. It shouldn't be anywhere near the PHP group either. It is run as a personal project with source dumps into PHP. Things run like that have no place in the core distribution. If you want to run your personal project, go ahead - but keep php.net out of it. > If you had wanted to co-operate, you could have spoken to me at that > conference in person, I tried. You disappeared after the first afternoon. cheers, Derick -- http://derickrethans.nl | http://xdebug.org Like Xdebug? Consider a donation: http://xdebug.org/donate.php twitter: @derickr and @xdebug Posted with an email client that doesn't mangle email: alpine
-- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
