Zeev, First, thanks for the complement ;-).
I doubt most people became great programmers overnight. Most people have learned with time, often from their own mistakes or mistakes they observed others doing. Restricting a language can limit how badly you can screw up, but it also limits what could you possibly do when you know better. Given enough time even novices will eventually become advanced users who'd appreciate the extra functionality offered. Ilia P.S. I am still convinced that Zeev and Andi are the same person ;-). On July 30, 2004 02:20 pm, Zeev Suraski wrote: > FWIW, I also think that introducing goto into the language is not a good > idea. Yes, I agree with Wez and Ilia who said that it can be excellent if > people are taught when and how to use it well. Which is exactly why I > think it's a bad idea to put it into a language like PHP - where the > "barrier to entry" is extremely low, and where we have absolutely no way to > teach people how to use it, and that they're generally not supposed to ever > use it. > > The average and even advanced PHP developer is not nearly as experienced as > Wez, Ilia, and others that have shown interest in the addition of this > feature. For them, we'd just be placing a BIG trap they can and most > probably will fall into. > > Zeev > > At 21:08 30/07/2004, Andi Gutmans wrote: > >At 01:53 PM 7/30/2004 -0400, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote: > >> > b) I don't think internals@ is a reflection of the PHP community. > >> > >>If this is the case, why are we even bothering to discuss relevant to PHP > >>issues on this list? If people who read/write to this list do not reflect > >> the community perhaps we should discuss this in general@ or anywhere > >> else where the voice of the "community" can be heard. That said this > >> puts A LOT of previously made decisions on this list in question, such > >> as the choice of StudlyCaps, etc... given that they were discussed in an > >> incorrect forum. > > > >I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that you should not only think of > >yourself as a user but of everyone (i.e. make sure you put yourself in the > >shoes of others and try and base your position on that). If you think the > >majority of PHP users should have and be using goto than that's another > > story. > > > >>Given this revelation, could you please tell me where the PHP community > >> is reflected, so that I may be aware of it's preferences. > > > >This is an argumentative question because you misunderstood what I was > >trying to say. > > > >> > Most > >> > people here fall into the category of very advanced developers. > >> > Doesn't make sense to me to add a stinky construct which no one should > >> > really be using, just because there are 50 people out there (most of > >> > them on internals@) who would actually use it correctly. > >> > >>So, what exactly consitutue a sufficient proof that "sticky construct" is > >>needed, a signed petition by 51% of the PHP's userbase? > > > >Tell me, do you think that every idea mentioned on internals@ should have > >been put in the language? We would look like crap today if that had been > > done. I think goto is quite similar. There have been no very compelling > > arguments in favor. Some of them don't hold because of break "n" and the > > few that are don't seem to be that strong of arguments. > >I'm sorry but I just don't understand the great need for goto in PHP and > >that is coming from someone who does see the need in C. > > > >Andi > > > >-- > >PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > >To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
