On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > Hi Andi, > > > On 5 Feb 2015, at 23:57, Andi Gutmans <a...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > The folks who really want all this great strict typing should head over > to Oracle.com and download free open-source Java? I hear it's got a lot of > strict typing features in it. Only downside is that it'll take them 10x > longer to complete their projects. OK sorry. Had to say that :) I realize > it's not the same… > > I don’t think it’s terribly funny to tell a large portion of the PHP > community to go away. >
Oh come on... You're taking me a bit too literally. Your proposal isn't Java-like strict typing... I even said that. > > Andrea, while I don't agree with what you say I accept it. *But* exactly > for the reasons you state (the big divide) we should also have a weak type > hinting option to vote for in parallel. If you feel morally unable to do > that then I can copy your work and just have another RFC running in > parallel but I think that would do a disservice to the good work you've > done. > > No, I don’t think that’s fair. I’d be against holding a vote on strict > types only for the same reason: the community is divided. Letting one side > “win" is simply unfair on everyone else. > I don't understand that statement. You mean it's not OK for any side to win unless you win? Or are you saying that you tried to strike a balance between the two parties which you hoped everyone could rally around? What if they can't? It's all or nothing? Btw, not trying to be facetious but really trying to understand where you're coming from. > To quote myself in the Scalar Type Hints thread, here’s a rough tally of > who was in favour of what in the v0.1 thread (I think “yourself” was Zeev > in that context): > Zeev and I aren't twins (thank god for him) and aren't always in agreement on such topics. Looks like I am not on that list. Don't see him either btw... Anyway, I think I need to sleep on it... I understand what you're trying to do. It's definitely not a crazy strict type hinting approach (which would be very bad)... But I find elements of it challenging... Andi > > On 15 Jan 2015, at 14:51, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > > Let’s have a look. From a quick skim over the thread for v0.1: > > > > * In favour of weak types (or the RFC anyway): Adam, Stas, yourself, > Jordi, Pierre, > > * Against, in favour of strict types: Maxime, Nikita, Markus, Marco, > Leigh, Levi, Sven(?) > > * In favour of strict types, not against weak types as compromise: > Matthew > > * Somewhat in favour: Sebastian > > * In favour of allowing both approaches: Marcio, Thomas, Marco > > > > I apologise if I am misrepresenting anyone’s position. > > > > This is unlikely to be super-representative of the PHP community. > However, I’m not sure I’d say “overwhelmingly positive”. It can be easy to > get confirmation bias when reading RFC threads. > > > > It is very clear to me that a lot of people would like strict types, and > some people would like weak types. As to their relative numbers, I cannot > say. > > > > I don’t think it’s really fair to cover only the use case of one half of > the PHP community. The other half counts too. This is a rather divisive > issue. > > As is rather clear, there was no such consensus on internals. Confirmation > bias can be a powerful thing, and it’s easy to forget that the number of > messages doesn’t reflect the number of participants. > > The views on other places were, from my experience, even more against weak > types than internals. Internals seems to be the most pro-weak types PHP > community I’m a part of. > > Because of this schism, I really think it would be completely unfair to > force through weak types. I know internals might like it (or some of > internals, anyway), and I know you and Zeev certainly do, but it’s not as > clear-cut in the wider community. > > This isn’t some minor issue, either: it’s a very frequently resurfacing > topic, and one which is particularly divisive. It’s not some minor syntax > issue that merely holding a vote will solve. > > -- > Andrea Faulds > http://ajf.me/ > > > > >
