It seems that the only people in favor of making this split, either as a
fork, directive or otherwise, are the people that do not intend to switch
to this new flavor.
So why not the other way around, with a new flavor named "PHP classic"?
Those who do not want to participate in the progression of
Bob,
I appreciate your candid email. Please see responses below.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:12 PM Bob Weinand wrote:
> It's clearly quite a feat, your contributions to PHP 3 and PHP 4.
> This does not give you any authority now.
While I completely disagree, that is completely beside the point
Hey Zeev,
> Am 09.08.2019 um 19:44 schrieb Zeev Suraski :
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:44 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>>>
>>> we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language
>> to PHP.
>>
>> Zeev also wrote:
>>> It will t
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 3:02 AM Joe Watkins wrote:
> Morning all,
>
> First, I want to say that I don't think the polarisation claimed to be
> occurring is actually occurring. The vast majority of internals voters
> appear to judge each RFC on it's own merit, while some of them give more
> weight
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:44 PM Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> >
> > we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language
> to PHP.
>
> Zeev also wrote:
> > It will take no additional resources,
>
> First, those two statements are mutuall
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>
> we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language to PHP.
Zeev also wrote:
> It will take no additional resources,
First, those two statements are mutually exclusive.
Second, the idea of keeping PHP as it currently is, an
Sent from my tablet
> On 9 Aug 2019, at 19:02, Mark Randall wrote:
>
>> On 09/08/2019 08:15, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>> You seem to believe that C++ is inherently superior to C. And it's
>> entirely within your right.
>> However, there are projects - to this date - that prefer C to C++ for a
>>
On 09/08/2019 08:15, Zeev Suraski wrote:
You seem to believe that C++ is inherently superior to C. And it's
entirely within your right.
However, there are projects - to this date - that prefer C to C++ for a
variety of reasons. PHP is one of them, and others include the Linux
kernel, redis, ngi
On 09/08/2019 08:15, Zeev Suraski wrote:
I'm unable to follow that part either. Would appreciate some further
elaboration to make it clearer what you have in mind in these three
paragraphs...
My read of what Nikita was suggesting was some kind of per-file or
per-package versioning system that
Joe,
Top posting on purpose because you seem to focus on the 'overnight' element
while not understanding quite what I meant (I'll take the blame for that) -
and therefore deriving irrelevant conclusions.
When I'm saying "overnight", I mean from the end users' perspective. In
the same way that C+
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 2:53 AM Mark Randall wrote:
> On 09/08/2019 00:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > 2. Different people have different preferences. There's a reason that
> not
> > everyone is using the same language, or have the same mobile phone or the
> > same car. Something it's not 'forward'
Morning all,
First, I want to say that I don't think the polarisation claimed to be
occurring is actually occurring. The vast majority of internals voters
appear to judge each RFC on it's own merit, while some of them give more
weight to retaining bc than others and that effects their vote, they d
On 09/08/2019 00:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:
2. Different people have different preferences. There's a reason that not
everyone is using the same language, or have the same mobile phone or the
same car. Something it's not 'forward' or 'backwards' - it's about
'different'. Is C++ better than C? M
> ...
> 3. Putting your apparent personal bias against backwards compatibility
> aside - if P++ goes in the directions you're hoping for - towards giving
> you the goodies on your wish list, why would you care if PHP still existed
> without these new changes/features?
>
> Zeev
I just want to expr
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 19:08, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> 3. Putting your apparent personal bias against backwards compatibility
> aside - if P++ goes in the directions you're hoping for - towards giving
> you the goodies on your wish list, why would you care if PHP still existed
> without these new ch
>
> I'm going to speak strictly as a userland PHP developer, for that is
> what I am.
> The idea of PHP being held hostage to eternal backwards compatibility
> fills me with absolute dread.
> (...)
> I can deal with short term pain for long term gain.
> What I would struggle to deal with is committ
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 1:25 AM Mark Randall wrote:
> On 08/08/2019 21:17, Zeev Suraski wrote:
> > [... and not in the Sith Lord kind of way.]
> > Thoughts?
>
> The idea of PHP being held hostage to eternal backwards compatibility
> fills me with absolute dread.
>
[snip]
> If you're not going for
17 matches
Mail list logo
