On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 22:14 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote: > Stanislav Malyshev schreef: > >> In a way this is true, but I look at it this way. Some languages are > >> strictly typed, some are dynamically typed. PHP can have the best of > >> both worlds by having optional strict typing where desired, as well as > > > > I do not believe trying to both eat cake and leave it intact would do us > > well. Mixing strict and non-strict code would be a nightmare. > > possibly like the nightmare that namespaces will give us in there current > form? I mention it because use of typehinting seems alot more voluntary and > less intrusive (when one encounters it in 3rd party code) than namespaces will > be.
I don't think any of this stuff will be a nightmare. Maybe for someone who has no idea what they're doing, but in that case programming in any language would be a nightmare. > > Absence of > > static type control (necessary for interpreted language) would make > > strictly typed code less, and not more stable. Add performance penalty > > from type checking and effort would be required from PHP newcomers to > > understand two code models instead of one - and you get the worst of > > newcomers? or newbies? the level of entry is being raised in all sorts of > areas whether you like it or not as a by product of making php more > suitable to enterprise level development. it's merely a case of > not being able to please everyone all of the time (or of not having your cake > and eating it) I don't think we should hold back the advancement of PHP and slow down hundreds of experienced developers to accommodate the newcomers. That's like having a universal speed limit of 25mph to accommodate those who don't know how to drive. Learning a language is hard. If a newcomer wants to learn PHP, they will work at it and do it, but keeping PHP at a lower level than what it should be just to make it easier on newcomers is ridiculous. > > both worlds, not the best. > > why do we then have typehinting for objects? and more recently arrays? Exactly. It makes no sense to me to introduce type checking for objects, but not for scalar types, when 75% of my variables are integers, strings, booleans, etc, and only about 25% are arrays and objects. > I also seem to remember (forgive me if Im mistaken) that you we're a > proponent for the increases in strictness surrounding various things related > to OO. that feels rather hypocritical at some level. > > > > >> Strict typing allows very little room for type conversion. This is > >> optionally hinting the desired type of a function parameter. > > > > That's not what I am hearing here on the list. > > you implied in another post that php should have some kind of structured > direction. > how about a language spec and a formal functionality proprosal/acceptance > mechanism? > (preferably one that didn't allow major changes like the inclusion of > namespaces into > a minor release) > -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
