Hi! > I strongly doubt that there is anything that people could say that > would alleviate your concern.
There's a lot of things people could say - for example, a proposal that does not have the same flaws. If you are fixed on having this proposal unmodified, then yes, my concerns are not addressed, but I am surprised that this is somehow presented as my fault, as if I am being unreasonable voicing my concern about a proposal because these concerns can not be dismissed with mere rhetoric. I would expect that if that is the case, the proposal would have to be improved - but seems like somehow the conclusion being made is that I am unreasonable and the proposal is just fine. > I could say how nicely my IDE gives me a warning when I edit files > from a library that don't belong to the project. Not sure how this relates to anything, sorry. > I could point to how the Javascript community are deliberately going > out of their way to make it easier to 'fracture' the language, by > using pre-compilers, and they have used that to drive evolution in the > JS ecosystem.* As I pointed out in my other emails, I don't remember any Javascript change that makes the engine reject code written for any of the past 20+ years of Javascript existence. So I am not sure how you see it as a point in your favor. You're not arguing for making pre-compiler for PHP (if you want to make one, I am the last person to argue against - full steam ahead!), you are arguing for making deep changes to the fabric of PHP itself. This is way different. > But from previous RFC discussions, you only want to discuss possible > concerns; not in an attempt to try to make the RFC better, or to come > up with a better idea, but to just put pressure onto the RFC author to > withdraw the RFC. That *is* trying to make RFC better - by evaluating concerns and trying to resolve them - or concluding they can not be resolved. I am not pressuring anybody into anything, that is plain false. I am stating where the proposal is lacking. Of course there are many areas where it is not - it would be stupid to write a long email outlining where I agree with RFC author, what use would that be? You seem to be under the impression that if I see a fault in the proposal, it is on me to produce a perfect proposal to does exactly the same (even if I am not yet convinced it should be done at all), and RFC author owes no effort to anyone to try and address the concerns - either I or anybody who raises the concerns do it for him and fix his RFC, or we are unreasonable negative jerks that just want to shut down everything, and should keep quiet about any problems we see until we find a solution that does the same but perfectly. I don't think this is how RFC process should work. I think raising concerns and expecting the proposal author to address them is absolutely normal - moreover, vital - part of the process. If the author needs any help in that, they should ask for it - if it's possible (in some cases the result could be "this proposal doesn't work" and this is normal too, I proposed tons of things that didn't work out). > The suggestion that RFC authors need to win you over in a discussion, > otherwise they aren't doing their job properly appears to be another > level of trying to shout down RFCs by making life less pleasant for > those RFC authors. Not me personally, of course, but most of the people with serious technical concerns, yes. That I think is what RFC is about. Did you expect the process to be "Somebody writes RFC, everybody shower them in praise and adoration, no concerns are raised, the code is committed and everybody goes to party happily"? That can happen, but with complex things like completely overhauling 20+-year-old language on a syntax level, it is unrealistic to expect that. For some RFCs, the decision is clear and unanimous, I personally votes "yes" on countless number of them, but sometimes it is more complex than that. If that makes author's life intolerably unpleasant, I am sorry to hear that but this is not the reason to give up on proper process because somebody feels they don't have it in them to support their point of view. > While it's admirable that you are strong in your beliefs, it is > incredibly tiring engaging in RFC discussions with you, when so often > don't it seems to be a waste of time, due to there being nothing that > could be said that would change your mind. This is obviously false, I've changed my mind many times. You just try to paint me as unreasonable jerk to save time on generating actual argument in defense of your position on technical merits - while I do spend this time and lay out technical arguments. Prudent strategy for you personally, but disastrous to the quality of the community discussion. Please let's move discussion for my personal faults as a human being to technical matters on PHP. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@gmail.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
