Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Bringing Peace to the Galaxy

  106497
August 9, 2019 16:10 vsuraski@gmail.com (Zeev Suraski)
Sent from my tablet
> On 9 Aug 2019, at 19:02, Mark Randall <markyr@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 09/08/2019 08:15, Zeev Suraski wrote: >> You seem to believe that C++ is inherently superior to C. And it's >> entirely within your right. >> However, there are projects - to this date - that prefer C to C++ for a >> variety of reasons. PHP is one of them, and others include the Linux >> kernel, redis, nginx, and actually - the vast majority of the fundamental >> pieces of OS infrastructure our planet runs on. This isn't just for >> historical reasons - it has to do with a variety of reasons, and the >> simplicity of C is one of them. > > I just wanted to amend a bit of present day context, as it happens, security management at Microsoft is currently giving serious consideration to moving away from C / C++ and on to memory safe languages because of the benefits they bring.
Regardless of whether or not it’d happen - this has nothing to do with the point at hand. It’s not whether C and C++ are good or bad. It’s about the concept of introducing a sister language that provides new capabilities and certain different behaviors, rather than changing the original one. We’re not arguing whether PHP/P++ are good, we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language to PHP. Zeev
  106499
August 9, 2019 16:44 Danack@basereality.com (Dan Ackroyd)
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com> wrote:
> > we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language to PHP.
Zeev also wrote:
> It will take no additional resources,
First, those two statements are mutually exclusive. Second, the idea of keeping PHP as it currently is, and pushing people who want to evolve the language out from core PHP to make their own language, is effectively telling those people to make a fork of the project. This is not an appropriate thing to suggest. Please stop trying to regain control of the PHP project either through direct threats or through telling people that they should fork off the project if they want to evolve PHP. I strongly feel the conversations you are provoking on internals are not productive or healthy for the project. cheers Dan Ack
  106501
August 9, 2019 17:44 vsuraski@gmail.com (Zeev Suraski)
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:44 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language > to PHP. > > Zeev also wrote: > > It will take no additional resources, > > First, those two statements are mutually exclusive. >
Before I move on, I have to say I admire your level of confidence. I can only dream of having something even remotely close. You're talking to a person that co-wrote the PHP engine, twice, that led parts of a 3rd engine rewrite, that helped lead (although at a hands-off manner) a 4th engine rewrite, that wrote OPcache, and a bunch of other things - and yet you still feel confident to tell me that I have no idea what I'm talking - when talking about precisely that. If I were in your place, I'd be wondering "am I missing something?" and probably try to ask some clarifying questions before telling that other guy that he's clueless and/or lying. Even if I disagreed with that person on virtually everything. With that out of the way - the very short version is that there's nothing mutually exclusive about these statements. In fact, saying that means that you really do not understand what the idea is. There could be several reasons for that - but I'm willing to take the blame as perhaps I didn't make it entirely clear. I'll try to remedy that separately from this email.. Second, the idea of keeping PHP as it currently is, and pushing people
> who want to evolve the language out from core PHP to make their own > language, is effectively telling those people to make a fork of the > project. >
This is another illustration, an even clearer one - that you simply don't understand what the idea is at any meaningful level. Here too - I'll take the blame. I'm going to try and fix that. This is not an appropriate thing to suggest.
> > Please stop trying to regain control of the PHP project either through > direct threats or through telling people that they should fork off the > project if they want to evolve PHP. > > I strongly feel the conversations you are provoking on internals are > not productive or healthy for the project. >
Dan, don't get this the wrong way, but if anybody is behaving inappropriately, that would be you. You repeatedly talk to me in a condescending (text) tone, you're virtually always interpreting my words in the most negative and malicious way possible (and beyond), and you don't shy away from doing that publicly. You're being repeatedly disrespectful. Adding
> cheers
at the end does not change that.. I don't address you in such a disrespectful manner, neither should you. Please stop. Zeev
  106504
August 9, 2019 20:12 bobwei9@hotmail.com (Bob Weinand)
Hey Zeev,

> Am 09.08.2019 um 19:44 schrieb Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com>: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:44 PM Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 17:10, Zeev Suraski <vsuraski@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> we’re discussing whether it makes sense to introduce a sister language >> to PHP. >> >> Zeev also wrote: >>> It will take no additional resources, >> >> First, those two statements are mutually exclusive. >> > > Before I move on, I have to say I admire your level of confidence. I can > only dream of having something even remotely close. > > You're talking to a person that co-wrote the PHP engine, twice, that led > parts of a 3rd engine rewrite, that helped lead (although at a hands-off > manner) a 4th engine rewrite, that wrote OPcache, and a bunch of other > things - and yet you still feel confident to tell me that I have no idea > what I'm talking - when talking about precisely that.
It's clearly quite a feat, your contributions to PHP 3 and PHP 4. This does not give you any authority now. You are not a current active code maintainer. I won't deny you the respect for your former achievements - but as it is now, you are - not to sound harsh, but just stating the fact - a single person here with opinions (like we all). From my perspective at least (and others I've talked to), you are writing like you would have a leadership position which you do not have. I honestly think you should back off for some time. I definitely appreciate everyone sharing their opinions ... More on that below. Back to the main question: I think I have worked much more recently than you actively on this project and I can tell you that Dan is absolutely right here.
> If I were in your place, I'd be wondering "am I missing something?" and > probably try to ask some clarifying questions before telling that other guy > that he's clueless and/or lying. Even if I disagreed with that person on > virtually everything.
I cannot tell - I have no way to analyze your brain - it seems though, you are thinking to know more than you actually do. Maybe it's wrong, maybe it's right. Dan is not necessarily trying to be disrespectful here, he just simply does not add the disclaimer "it seems to me". It is his perspective he is sharing, and I must say it overlaps with mine.
> With that out of the way - the very short version is that there's nothing > mutually exclusive about these statements. In fact, saying that means that > you really do not understand what the idea is. There could be several > reasons for that - but I'm willing to take the blame as perhaps I didn't > make it entirely clear. I'll try to remedy that separately from this email. > > Second, the idea of keeping PHP as it currently is, and pushing people >> who want to evolve the language out from core PHP to make their own >> language, is effectively telling those people to make a fork of the >> project. >> > > This is another illustration, an even clearer one - that you simply don't > understand what the idea is at any meaningful level. Here too - I'll take > the blame. I'm going to try and fix that. > > This is not an appropriate thing to suggest.
At the very least there's an additional maintenance burden (let alone implementing everything we'd like to change).
>> Please stop trying to regain control of the PHP project either through >> direct threats or through telling people that they should fork off the >> project if they want to evolve PHP. >> >> I strongly feel the conversations you are provoking on internals are >> not productive or healthy for the project. >> > > Dan, don't get this the wrong way, but if anybody is behaving > inappropriately, that would be you. You repeatedly talk to me in a > condescending (text) tone, you're virtually always interpreting my words in > the most negative and malicious way possible (and beyond), and you don't > shy away from doing that publicly. You're being repeatedly disrespectful. > > Adding > >> cheers > > at the end does not change that.. > > I don't address you in such a disrespectful manner, neither should you. > Please stop.
I'm not going to defend Dan's tone here, but let me agree with what he's saying. You are being divisive, intentionally or not (I assume the latter), whether you're aware or not. Let me, at this place, kindly ask you to not repeatedly engage in a same discussion. Have your voice heard, once. There are a lot of topics where you state something (with content going also towards other tangents, discussing voting systems) and then the topic starts going off a tangent. This is annoying. I want to read the technical points. And then form my opinion. Not find long discussions about anything else or backs and forths not leading to any result or providing more technical context. Get a chat room to discuss process issues. Don't always be the one who presents the ideas. You ARE being viewed as controversial. You bringing proposals up is not going to be a productive discussion. Let others be your voice. To sum it up, again: please just back off. Thanks.
> Zeev
Off topic, but just to state it once officially (please don't reply to this): I support introduction of a code of conduct. Bob
  106507
August 9, 2019 21:10 vsuraski@gmail.com (Zeev Suraski)
Bob,

I appreciate your candid email.  Please see responses below.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:12 PM Bob Weinand <bobwei9@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It's clearly quite a feat, your contributions to PHP 3 and PHP 4. > This does not give you any authority now.
While I completely disagree, that is completely beside the point. My comments to Dan were not in the context of authority - but in the context of knowledge. I think it takes quite a bit of Chutzpah, to tell a person - that by his widely-known credentials is an world-class expert with how the PHP engine works - that he effectively doesn't know what he's talking about. Even more so when it's coming from someone who's no such expert. From my perspective at least (and others I've talked to), you are writing
> like you would have a leadership position which you do not have.
You're obviously entitled to that opinion. But I'm entitled to my own. PHP 7, which you're likely currently using - would not have existed if it wasn't for my leadership (and, of course, Dmitry's remarkable skills, as well as Nikita's and yours).
> Back to the main question: > I think I have worked much more recently than you actively on this project > and I can tell you that Dan is absolutely right here. >
The fact you worked more recently on the project isn't really relevant here. The fundamentals of what it means to add a new mode to PHP haven't changed since the days of PHP 4. What I am proposing is not more complicated to implement than Nikita's 'editions' idea. Arguably - in the long run - it's actually less complicated. It's also not complicated in absolute terms. Provided you understand the idea itself. At the very least there's an additional maintenance burden (let alone
> implementing everything we'd like to change). >
Yes, there is. But for code that's super stable and barely ever changes. And I'll point out again - the very same maintenance overhead - and more - exists in Nikita's idea. The only legitimate point of concern - which Nikita alluded to, is the implementing all (or most) of the compatibility-breaking changes in one go may be too challenging with the resources we have. My gut is that it wouldn't be - although here I'd agree that Nikita's gut - or your gut for that matter - are probably more accurately than mine. With that said, we'd only know that once we look at the list. I'm not going to defend Dan's tone here, but let me agree with what he's
> saying. >
I'm happy that you at least don't defend his tone.
> You are being divisive, intentionally or not (I assume the latter), > whether you're aware or not. >
It may surprise you, but I'm well aware of it. I know that the majority of internals@ frequenters (at least the ones who speak up) are from the strict/no-BC camp, and having been a key proponent of the other school of thought - that did not buy me much love on internals. And yes, I know there are other reasons. However, I'm also well aware of the fact that while internals@ sets the course for PHP - there are groups in PHP world which are grossly underpresented in it (or aren't represented at all). Trust me, I'm not enjoying any of this. You may think I'm getting some sort of a kick out of having a 15-way discussion with folks attacking me from every direction. I don't, it's as pleasant as having my teeth pulled out. Take Nikita's comments re: his mental well-being, and multiply them twentyfold - and you'd probably get an idea of my level of enjoyment is. Others - who share my view and have more code-contributions merit than almost everyone else combined (I'm talking about Dmitry here), just don't have the mental strength to deal with it and gave up. But even if you don't think I have a leadership position, as one of the people who started this project and helped lead it to tremendous success - and as someone who's well aware that there's a much more diverse universe beyond internals@ - I refuse to give in. Even more so when I think there may be a way to solve our biggest challenge over the last decade in an elegant way that works for everyone. Let me, at this place, kindly ask you to not repeatedly engage in a same
> discussion. Have your voice heard, once.
There are a lot of topics where you state something (with content going
> also towards other tangents, discussing voting systems) and then the topic > starts going off a tangent. > This is annoying. I want to read the technical points. And then form my > opinion. Not find long discussions about anything else or backs and forths > not leading to any result or providing more technical context. >
While I can't guarantee that I'll have my voice heard once (this is not, at all, what a mailing list is about - it's about interactivity) - I can say that I'll try to move to an article approach - like the Counterpoint I published for short tags or the FAQ for P++. Get a chat room to discuss process issues. Don't always be the one who
> presents the ideas. You ARE being viewed as controversial. You bringing > proposals up is not going to be a productive discussion. >
It may surprise you (perhaps not by now), but I'm well aware of that. I'd be happy for someone else to present these ideas, but reality is that few on internals share my line of thinking, and those who do - don't have the mental strength or motivation to do it in my place. So what you are essentially telling me is that I'm cursed by some sort of modern age Cassandra's curse, where I can only watch bad things happen without doing anything about it - or propose new ideas. While I think I have to choose from a lousy set of choices (as I agree with so much of what you said) - doing my best to bring up and defend my ideas is still the least worse option - even if it's super costly for me personally, and even if it rubs people the wrong way. If you share Dmitry's and my views and are willing to be our voice and the voice of some unrepresented masses on internals@, I'll be happy to discuss this with you and delegate the job. Not just happy - ecstatic. Thanks again for the candid yet respectful email - I do appreciate it. Zeev
  106508
August 9, 2019 21:17 arnold.adaniels.nl@gmail.com (Arnold Daniels)
It seems that the only people in favor of making this split, either as a
fork, directive or otherwise, are the people that do not intend to switch
to this new flavor.

So why not the other way around, with a new flavor named "PHP classic"?
Those who do not want to participate in the progression of PHP can opt to
run PHP classic instead.

- Arnold

P.S. I'm not arguing that this, or any split is a good idea. In not even
arguing that this is a viable option. Instead, see it as an aid to help you
see things from the other side and understand why people are getting
emotional.