On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Levi Morrison wrote:
> > Can we re-write PHP with PHP? ;)
>
> Anthony and Nikita are already on it: https://github.com/ircmaxell/PHPPHP
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
> Just wish
In a semi-joke but oddly real concept. I get that the language proposals
(c++) are half jokes. But if we're going down that road, why don't we
consider rpython and building on top of HippyVM that's already partially
built... It would have a number of advantages over C:
1. It compiles to C, so shou
Not really insane.
PHPPHP is very powerful. Imagine someone that have no idea about C but
would love to propose something.
Just fork the project, add the desired support in PHP and propose here. I
guarantee it'll be easier to understand the caveats and the final patch
easily.
Cheers,
On Sat, Ja
That is seriously funny
On Jan 11, 2013, at 11:35 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>> Can we re-write PHP with PHP? ;)
>
> Anthony and Nikita are already on it: https://github.com/ircmaxell/PHPPHP
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.ph
> Can we re-write PHP with PHP? ;)
Anthony and Nikita are already on it: https://github.com/ircmaxell/PHPPHP
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On 1/11/2013 1:17 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
A function that is related to a zend_function struct could be placed
anywhere, in any file and can be named in any way. Finding it is like
looking for a needle in a haystack, then you add macros.
You can do macros in C++ too, and you can have de
I would definitely vote "No" on object oriented. I'd vote for C++ but
SOLELY because templates. I'd stay away from classes as they generally
hurt performance.
Sorry for the off-topic comment :)
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Clint Priest wrote:
> Oooh, a rewrite? Can we write it in an object
Hi!
> A function that is related to a zend_function struct could be placed
> anywhere, in any file and can be named in any way. Finding it is like
> looking for a needle in a haystack, then you add macros.
You can do macros in C++ too, and you can have detached functions too.
And it is perfectly
Hi!
> To make sure we are not providing a somewhat cumbersome
> implementation, let’s start tackling named parameters first. It’s
> another long standing feature. We will most likely need named
> parameters for convenient annotations anyway. We have an (really old)
> RFC for that: https://wiki.php
2013/1/11 Clint Priest
>
> Even so, C++ is not the only object oriented language out there.
>
> -Clint
I could not resist the urge to suggest D as an option :) Sorry for this
troll attempt.
Well, there is Quercus out there in the wild, they did it. Sure a total
rewrite will give opportun
It's a pretty decent read, but the major point that his article about
the virtues of C misses a huge mark. Software written in C, when they
become of sufficient size become completely impossible to keep track of.
A function that is related to a zend_function struct could be placed
anywhere, i
Hi Stas,
I think you hit a nail here.
Am 10.01.2013 um 21:36 schrieb Stas Malyshev :
> Another thing is that we're not having some features that are used
> extensively in C# annotations, main being named parameters support.
To make sure we are not providing a somewhat cumbersome implementation
Hi!
> parameters is a great example. I'd also name another one,
> ReflectionNamespace; namespaces are converted to strings and attached to
> their classes during compile time and you can never reflect over them to
> grab for example their names.
I still can't understand why you need ReflectionNam
No. C++ is horrible. Very good read:
http://damienkatz.net/2013/01/the_unreasonable_effectiveness_of_c.html
On Jan 11, 2013 5:06 AM, "Clint Priest" wrote:
> Oooh, a rewrite? Can we write it in an object oriented language this
> time? Please? Pretty Please???
>
> :D
>
> On 1/10/2013 9:49 PM,
Hi,
I suggest you start defining action items in the RFC. After reading what
Stas and others say, this looks like too big a task to discuss in itself,
so it should be definitely be broken down.
You will probably find that as it is broken down, actual development
support will surface by itself.
R
Oooh, a rewrite? Can we write it in an object oriented language this
time? Please? Pretty Please???
:D
On 1/10/2013 9:49 PM, guilhermebla...@gmail.com wrote:
Stas,
I totally agree and Pierrick and I faced all these problems during the
creation of patch.
If PHP doesn't all have support req
Stas,
I totally agree and Pierrick and I faced all these problems during the
creation of patch.
If PHP doesn't all have support required for a given feature, let's just
not only discuss feature, but also the required support too. Named
parameters is a great example. I'd also name another one,
Refl
Hi!
> I strongly suggest to anyone following the (too many) threads about
> annotations to try the C# annotation and see what it allows. It goes
As far as I can see, C# annotations rely on two very important things:
1. Compiler support. Compiler really knows a lot about what annotations do.
2. Ex
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Nate Tuganov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well, I've been reading internals for years and never replied. But I think
> this time I have to share my thoughts.
>
> First of all I understand Rasmus and Stas position on holding PHP as simple
> as it is. It's great and in the
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Nate Tuganov wrote:
> PHP is great for web development, let's stick to it. Give us a chance to
> create frameworks, which can use Annotations, DI, IoC, Factories,
> Decorators and all others patterns to allow regular designer to create a
> simple site with few li
20 matches
Mail list logo
