Fleshgrinder <p...@fleshgrinder.com> schrieb am Mi., 15. Juni 2016, 19:55:

> On 6/15/2016 1:30 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> > On 6/14/16 3:12 PM, Fleshgrinder wrote:
> >
> >> Call me ignorant but is this required in typical web applications?
> >
> > PHP is used for various things, not just web apps. I use it for various
> > other things because its the language in which I am most fluent.
> >
>
> > PHP is and should remain: a pragmatic web-focused language
> >
> > --- Rasmus Lerdorf
>
> Please do not ignore our mission statement here. PHP is not a general
> purpose language and even real general purpose languages do not offer
> predictable RNGs.
>

Quoting from PHP.net:

PHP is a popular general-purpose scripting language that is especially
suited to web development.

On 6/15/2016 1:30 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> > And the requirements of *typical* apps using PHP should not be the basis
> > for removing functions that are in fact used in existing programs.
> >
>
> Moving to PECL is not considered a BC and people are easily able to get
> the functions back in if they really need to.
>
> On 6/15/2016 1:30 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> > It's possible to change programs so they don't use mt_rand() etc. but
> > most people won't thank you for forcing them to rewrite software that
> > works.
> >
>
> The applications and libraries who are using it incorrectly right now
> will thank us for making it harder to use the language incorrectly.
>
> On 6/15/2016 1:30 AM, Tom Worster wrote:
> > Leigh, iiuc, is trying to fix bugs. Let's not change the discussion to
> > cleaning up PHP's API.
> >
>
> This is not what my proposal is about. I would move all the broken and
> weak stuff to PECL and offer the already existing good alternatives to
> the developers. At the same time we are able to fix the problems in the
> PECL modules and release a new major version of those packages.
>
> We do not need to fix password_hash() nor random_int() since they work
> and they are what is needed in a web-focused language.
>
> --
> Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
>
>

Reply via email to