Still, all these problems are solved to the same degree if you add a
#[Sealed] attribute to a class which has no functional impact. You have
sufficiently indicated to any user that extending this class is not a
designed feature and may cause backwards-incompatible breaks with future
releases - in a way that both a programmer and IDE can reason about, which
in PHP's context is what matters. Attributes arguably even have a greater
qualitative advantage that they can be applied right down as far as
individual method parameters.
In Java the idea of final and sealed classes makes more sense, since we
actually to some extent need the compiler to be able to reason about these
types and can gain optimization and code generation benefits from its being
able to do so. PHP's concept of typing and implementation of type checking
as an interpreted language is completely different.
I wonder, if final and sealed as language constructs really offer the
guarantees about intent and safety their advocates say they do, why are
they not the default? Why can no one point me to a language where I have to
write something like
extendable class Foo permits all { .... }
(and there are people who would be in favour of making inheritability this
explicit, but I'm not one of them)
It's one thing as an author of code to say "I only intended and support
this finite set of use-cases", it's quite another to say "and you should be
impeded from proceeding with any legitimate use-case I didn't imagine or
foresee"
In practice, the only thing I've ever seen this achieve is to create
difficulties, while the claimed benefits can be adequately (and better)
achieved through existing patterns like annotations, interfaces and DI.
On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 4:36 PM Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 24, 2021, at 7:39 PM, David Gebler <davidgeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't love this idea, I'm not very fond of the final keyword, either;
>
>
> I'll start by saying the final keyword caused me a tremendous amount of
> heartache because it was used on a class in a framework that I badly, badly
> needed to extend.
>
> But even so, I recognize why they used it, and I still don't have a great
> argument for how they could address the reasons they used it some other way.
>
> I've always believed annotations (or attributes in PHP these days) are a
> better of way of indicating you, as an author of a class, did not write it
> with inheritability in mind or intended than restricting language features
> through syntactic constructs.
>
> The RFC says "when you have a class in your code base that shares some
> implementation detail between 2 or more other objects, your only protection
> against others making use of this class is to add `@internal` annotation,
> which doesn't offer any runtime guarantee that no one is extending this
> object", to which I ask - why do you need this guarantee? What does it
> qualitatively add? If I make a judgement that I want to extend your class
> or implement your interface, I can just delete the sealed keyword from your
> code and carry on. So it doesn't actually offer any guarantee at all that
> I'm not extending the type.
>
>
> Actually, it does offer such a guarantee. It guarantees if you are using
> a non-forked version of the original developer's (OD's) library or
> framework then that class won't be extended. When someone pulls the
> original non-forked version from its source repository — such as when using
> Composer — then that code will be (effectively) guaranteed not to be
> extended.
>
> OTOH, if you do delete the sealed (or final) keyword you have then forked
> the code, in a defacto manner if not a literal one. If you use a forked
> version of the code, you now own the maintenance of that code and any bugs
> that are generated by your forked changes in using code. The original
> developer has no moral, ethical or even contractual obligation to care
> about the breakage you cause.
>
> Hypothetical example: You fork the code, remove sealed/final, then
> subclass the code and add a method, let's call it ToString(). And you write
> your application to use ToString(). Now the OD releases a new minor version
> and they also add a ToString() method. Applications using your fork
> probably cannot use the new version of the OD's library because when the
> library calls ToString() your version is called. So you have to update your
> application to use the new version of the library and once again remove
> sealed/final.
>
> AND, if your code is instead another add-on library, now users of your
> add-on library will also have to fix their code too. Which could
> potentially be a large number of users if your add-on is successful.
>
> So not using final or sealed can result in some really hairy and possibly
> impossible to fully resolve backward compatibility concerns for developers
> who publish libraries and/or frameworks.
>
> The best it can achieve is to indicate your
> intentions, which I believe can be adequately done today through an
> attribute, no addition to the language needed.
>
>
> Still, I concur with your concerns. Developers too often implement final
> classes in libraries and frameworks without fully addressing all the
> use-cases and/or adding enough extensibility points because it makes their
> lives easier. Because of that final — and sealed, if added — can make the
> life of an application developer a living hell.
>
> So what's the answer? I don't know that I have the ultimate answer, but I
> would be a lot more comfortable with adding features to PHP such as ones
> like sealed that restrict the "O" in S.O.L.I.D.[0] if PHP were to offer the
> following three (3) things, all of which can be found in Go, and I am sure
> other languages:
>
> 1. Class embedding[1] — Allows one class to embed another and immediately
> have access to all its properties and methods, and also to be able to
> extract an instance of that embedded class. It is called "Type embedding"
> in Go.
>
> 2.Type definitions[2] — A typedef would allow developers to define
> constrained versions of existing types, such as `FiveStarRating` which
> could only contain 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5, or types that identify a signature, for
> example as `ConvertToString` which could require a closure that implements
> `func(mixed):string`. In Go you can compose other types to create new
> types, but I'm not sure if those other type of types could apply to PHP, at
> least as it currently exists, and especially because it is not a compiled
> language.
>
> 3. Structural typing[3] — Basically interfaces that can be implemented
> implicitly rather than explicitly. For example, if I wanted to implement a
> Stringable interface that requires a ToString():string method then
> structural typing would allow me to implement that interface simply by
> adding a ToString() method instead of requiring me to also add "implements
> Stringable" to the class definition.
>
> Those three features are all killer language features and would make great
> additions to PHP. IMO, of course.
>
> #fwiw
>
> -Mike
>
> [0] https://stackify.com/solid-design-open-closed-principle/
> [1] https://travix.io/type-embedding-in-go-ba40dd4264df
> [2] https://go101.org/article/type-system-overview.html
> [3]
> https://blog.carbonfive.com/structural-typing-compile-time-duck-typing/
>
