On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Anthony Ferrara <ircmax...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Stas, > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalys...@sugarcrm.com > >wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > Sure. Here you go. Here are two examples: > > > > > > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ > > > > This is a nice text, but practical meaning of it is kind of unclear. > > Even then, applying it to what we have now with annotations, I can see > > they violate at least #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7 :) And possibly #17 too :) > > Now, I'm not saying we need to accept exactly such rules, and I see how > > you may disagree with my application of it - but that's exactly my > > point. I do not see how having something like this would improve what > > you want to improve. > > > > It would provide context. You saying that annotations violate #1, #2, #3, > #5 and #7 would be a *PERFECT* argument. It puts context into what's wrong > with the proposal, and not some ambiguous saying... > > > > Perl one is more practical, but it is a statement of opinion - even > > though very influential one of a very smart man. Would you be willing to > > accept such statement if it says something that you personally disagree > > with? And out of many different opinion, how we choose one that deserves > > to be "official", making all other ones "officially wrong"? > > > Absolutely. I want A vision, not necessarily MY vision. I want a vision the > majority can agree with (considering the current state of the dev teams. As > far as how we choose, I would suggest using the RFC system. > > > Neither are you. Yet I am not telling people to shut up, and you are. > > Curious. > > > I said to shut up with the rhetoric, not shut up in general. > > Additionally, replies like the following ARE telling people to shut up > IMHO: > > http://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=135083835232016&w=2 > > >> Hello, list. I want to propose generics. > > > Please no. If you need Java, you know where to find it. Java has a set > > of great tools, great books, great community. And it's completely free. > > Anybody who needs Java can just do it. I see no need to turn PHP into > Java. > > That's the type of thing I want to get rid of... > > > that we can measure things against. Therefore, there is no such thing as > > > a "good fit for PHP" outside our own personal opinions. It may seem > like > > > > I believe there is. Each language has a philosophy and internal > > coherence, or at least it should strive to have it. In fact, PHP is > > frequently criticized for being lacking on this front, and we do not > > have anything written down formally, but I think it still exists. > > Moreover, if it does not, and PHP is nothing but a hodgepodge of > > somewhat useful tools without any coherent thought and system behind > > them - it would be very bad for PHP project. And if it does exist, then > > there are things which align with it, and there are things which do not. > > > s:/philosophy/vision/ and that's basically what I'm asking for. It does > exist informally as 1000 different versions right now (one or 4 per person > on this list). > > And I do currently believe that PHP development currently IS nothing but a > hodgepodge (how you describe it). I feel it's been that way since at least > 5.3 when progress on 6 stalled. Since then, it feels like things became > completely disjointed. The RFC and voting process was a sign of this > disjoint environment. I want to fix the underlying problem and give the > project direction again. > > > > > I'm not saying not to express that you think the direction is wrong. > > > What I'm saying is to express it in a better way than "PHP is not Java" > > > and "I don't ever want to see this". Those are terminal statements. > > > > I made kilobytes if not megabytes of comments on this topic for the past > > years. So if you try to latch on one phrase which was a part of bigger > > response and make it sound as if I never explained what I mean and > > nobody else did the same, repeatedly, over the years - this is just > > wrong. I did explain and I keep explaining it. You may not agree but > > please do not make it sound as if I only actually said what I mean > > instead of droning on with "PHP is not Java", maybe then you could > > understand it... I said it many times - the syntax proposed is very > > complex and hardly comprehensible, it creates a separate sub-language > > inside PHP incompatible with what the rest of PHP is doing, it is not > > readable and it is helpful only in very small subset of PHP uses. I am > > not opposed to the idea in general, but I am opposed to the level of > > complexity - both syntactical and conceptual - it currently involves. > > > And I appreciate (even if I usually disagree) the content you contribute. > BUt I can't stand when you go on those terminal remarks (PHP is not Java, I > never want to see this). They are demoralizing, deflating and do nothing > but shut people down. That's why even in your large reply I picked out one > phrase. Because that one phrase was more powerful than the rest of your > reply... > > Anthony > Just a thought - if the main argument is about syntax - we can propose few versions (Without implementing them) and then vote for 1) No annotations (attributes) at all. 2) Syntax #1 3) Syntax #2 and so on. What do you think?
