Sending people who want to have more structure in the language to Java is downright bad, not to mention that it sounds completely dictatorial. I would just put that in the next Zend newsletter to make it clear for your customers that there is a saner option.
Stelian On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:57 AM, 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... > > 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. > > Andi > > > On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > > Hi Andi, > > > > > On 5 Feb 2015, at 23:22, Andi Gutmans <a...@zend.com> wrote: > > > > > > I have to say I’m pretty disappointed at the opening of the vote. > > > We had a pretty good RFC (thank you) for weak type hinting which was > > aligned with the spirit of PHP and everyone was able to rally around it. > > > > This is far from true. Some people on internals were happy, but only > some, > > and everywhere outside internals I looked, the reception was far more > > negative. > > > > > This has now been morphed into something very hard to swallow and IMO > > having such a declare(…) syntax will be ridiculed by the broader app dev > > community until the end of time… > > > > Nobody mocks Perl or JS for use strict. > > > > > But even that syntax aside (it’s only syntax after all), I think we > lost > > the ability to reach consensus on something so important to everyone > which > > we haven’t been able to come to agreement on for over 10 years. Finally > it > > was there, in reach and you made a 180 degree turn. > > > > “Consensus” is exaggerated. There was no consensus and to claim there was > > is to ignore the reality that the PHP community is divided over this > issue. > > I’d love to say that everyone loves weak type hints and if that version > had > > passed we’d all be dancing around happy holding hands, but the reception > > was not uniformly positive, not even close, and that’s just on internals. > > > > > I think it’d be so much easier for us to implement weak type hinting. > > Have everyone rally around it. Be happy and then learn and see whether an > > additional mechanism is really necessary. > > > > Who’d be happy? I realise you and Zeev are big fans of weak types, as are > > many others, but there are also a lot of PHP developers who vehemently > > disagree with you. > > > > > We could even add an E_STRICT_TYPES error_reporting flag to help folks > > “debug” their code if they so wish to see if there are any hotspots in > > their code they may want to take a look at - again not necessarily an > error > > but maybe a debugging tool. > > > > Global error handlers affect all code the interpreter runs, which is why > > we’ve looked down on them in recent times. > > > > > But net, net - why not just implement the thing everyone can agree on. > > > > Everyone doesn’t agree on it. > > > > If everyone did agree on it, v0.1 of the RFC would have been the one that > > went to vote. > > > > > Have something really good in the spirit of the PHP Language for PHP 7 > > and learn how people leverage that… The reality is that for the majority > of > > the Web community “1” coming in from HTTP should be accepted as a 1. > Period. > > > > It’s very well and good you claiming that the “majority” agree, but this > > does not match my experiences. The PHP community is not a single, > > homogenous entity. It is very difficult to judge. > > > > > I voted “no” but I will vote “yes” for the competing RFC which is 80% > of > > your RFC. Why are we not given that option?????? > > > > Because I cannot in good conscience push through something in the name of > > “consensus” which does not even approach it. > > > > -- > > Andrea Faulds > > http://ajf.me/ > > > > > > > > > > >
