Hi! > You just proved my point with your reply. PHP doesn't have a vision. The > two people in this thread who have provided what they thought were > visions don't agree. And that's a problem.
If you mean that there would be some "vision" document that prevents disagreement and decides arguments once and for all, are you sure it is what you want? It is clear we disagree on many things. Suppose I wrote a document that describes how I see PHP should be, and it will be accepted as a "vision". Would you then say it is the right thing to do and agree with me completely as far as the "vision" document goes? Would you expect everybody else to do so? Probably not. So while we can have some vague "mission statement", there would always be disagreement on specific questions, and only way you can avoid that is to exclude some side of the debate. We can have a vision, but not one that would be used to avoid disagreement and discussion. > While they both have "web" in them, they provide very different goals > and metrics with which to gauge contributions by. And that's the entire > point of my call for a single, consistent and official vision... Can you give me some examples of modern languages like PHP having "official visions" like that? I'd really like to understand what kind of official vision you have in mind. Some document examples would help. > Again, "PHP is not X" is rhetoric. Pure and simple. You could use that > to reject *any* feature that we didn't explicitly invent. Which is the Maybe I could, but I never did and never intend to, and you know that I have supported and participated in discussions of number of features that I did not explicitly invent. It is not about me. It is about what is a good fit for PHP and what is not. I think some complex features are not a good fit for PHP and that's my "vision". > Yes you do! And quite often you do it in a very good and constructive > way. I applaud that. But you also provide it in a very destructive way > at times. And that's what I'm asking you to please stop. For example: I think the direction such changes take PHP is wrong, and I see no reason why I need to stop saying that. I think adding such syntax would make PHP code look convoluted and would significantly impair ability of the developers to understand what's going on. It may be a perfect fit for a couple of ORM-like use cases, but I think it's not enough to make it part of the general PHP language. I hope we can find common ground that can be useful for ORM folks but still not over-complicated and does not develop into additional sub-language with some weird syntax driven mainly by "which symbol didn't we use yet?" But if it is the only way to do it, then I'd rather not. > While I do believe that you are out of touch with what's been going on > in the user-land of PHP trends over the past 5 years, the way I wrote it Your belief is wrong, and let's leave it at that. It's really not about me. -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227 -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
