Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

  107401
October 7, 2019 18:53 smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)
Hi!

> That is the purpose of the eventual vote, is it not? To allow the > community to make that determination.
Not exactly - there should be a good reason before the RFC comes to a vote. If you're not sure there's a VERY good reason, there shouldn't be the RFC about it at all, at least not in voting phase. RFC process shouldn't be just "let's throw it against the wall and see if anything sticks", it should be used responsibly.
> Regardless of the outcome of this specific RFC, I am of the firm belief > that it's important to be able to re-visit past choices every now and > then. That applies to most things, not just PHP.
In abstract, this a banality, yes, it is important, sometimes. In specific, I've seen a torrent of BC-breaking proposals lately that seem to have no good reason except for removing stuff because... I'm not even sure because of what, most of it seems to be vague stuff like "unintuitive" and "you can do it in other way". I think effort spent on breaking BC without a VERY good reason is a wasted effort. Having as little syntax constructs and functions as absolutely possible has never been the goal of PHP, and I am surprised why it is in fashion now. -- Stas Malyshev smalyshev@gmail.com
  107402
October 7, 2019 20:05 oludonsexy@gmail.com (Olumide Samson)
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 7:53 PM Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi! > > > That is the purpose of the eventual vote, is it not? To allow the > > community to make that determination. > > Not exactly - there should be a good reason before the RFC comes to a > vote. If you're not sure there's a VERY good reason, there shouldn't be > the RFC about it at all, at least not in voting phase. RFC process > shouldn't be just "let's throw it against the wall and see if anything > sticks", it should be used responsibly. > > > Regardless of the outcome of this specific RFC, I am of the firm belief > > that it's important to be able to re-visit past choices every now and > > then. That applies to most things, not just PHP. > > In abstract, this a banality, yes, it is important, sometimes. In > specific, I've seen a torrent of BC-breaking proposals lately that seem > to have no good reason except for removing stuff because... I'm not even > sure because of what, most of it seems to be vague stuff like > "unintuitive" and "you can do it in other way". I think effort spent on > breaking BC without a VERY good reason is a wasted effort. Having as > little syntax constructs and functions as absolutely possible has never > been the goal of PHP, and I am surprised why it is in fashion now. > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalyshev@gmail.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
What's the goal of PHP?
  107403
October 7, 2019 20:19 claude.pache@gmail.com (Claude Pache)
> Le 7 oct. 2019 à 22:06, Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > What's the goal of PHP?
One important goal is (like many programming languages) to get work done. —Claude
  107404
October 7, 2019 21:20 oludonsexy@gmail.com (Olumide Samson)
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 9:20 PM Claude Pache pache@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Le 7 oct. 2019 à 22:06, Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > > What's the goal of PHP? > > One important goal is (like many programming languages) to get work done. > > —Claude > I disagree, coz this seems to be a goal cooked up by you(even if I might
believe in the general idea of that goal, I still can't believe it until I see where it was outlined).
  107453
October 9, 2019 14:41 bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini)
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 9:20 PM Claude Pache pache@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Le 7 oct. 2019 à 22:06, Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> a écrit > : > > > > > > What's the goal of PHP? > > > > One important goal is (like many programming languages) to get work done. > > > I disagree, coz this seems to be a goal cooked up by you(even if I might > believe in the general idea of that goal, I still can't believe it until I > see where it was outlined). >
I think the PHP web-site[1] supports Claude's statement: "PHP is a popular general-purpose scripting language that is especially suited to web development. Fast, flexible and pragmatic, PHP powers everything from your blog to the most popular websites in the world." The adjectives used: - General-purpose - Fast - Flexible - Pragmatic The last one, pragmatic, applies to Claude's point. Various definitions of pragmatic include: - "solving problems in a sensible way that suits the conditions that really exist now, rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas, or rules" [2] - "of or relating to a practical point of view or practical considerations." [3] - "involving or emphasizing practical results rather than theories and ideas" [4] With respect to Mark's proposal, deprecating back-ticks: maybe it's more pragmatic to have a single, well-defined, and obvious way to invoke an external process. Sure, yet PHP isn't just "pragmatic". It's also flexible and general-purpose. Flexible is the opposite of rigid, meaning there are circumstances where a second way, or even a third way, may provide more practical utility than the single canonical interface. General-purpose means a language is useful in many ways. PHP while "especially suited for web-development" is also useful as an ad-hoc shell scripting language and, in that context, back-ticks are welcomed. If we take back-ticks away, we hobble the "quick-scripting for personal use" flexibility in favor of the enterprise-grade "distributed development, high code-reuse and review" architecture. That seems to run counter to the nature of PHP. [1]:https://www.php.net [2]:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pragmatic [3]:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pragmatic [4]:https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/pragmatic
  107454
October 9, 2019 16:19 oludonsexy@gmail.com (Olumide Samson)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:41 PM Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 9:20 PM Claude Pache pache@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Le 7 oct. 2019 à 22:06, Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> a >> écrit : >> > > >> > > What's the goal of PHP? >> > >> > One important goal is (like many programming languages) to get work >> done. >> > >> I disagree, coz this seems to be a goal cooked up by you(even if I might >> believe in the general idea of that goal, I still can't believe it until I >> see where it was outlined). >> > > I think the PHP web-site[1] supports Claude's statement: > > "PHP is a popular general-purpose scripting language that is especially > suited to web development. > Fast, flexible and pragmatic, PHP powers everything from your blog to the > most popular websites in the world." > > The adjectives used: > > - General-purpose > - Fast > - Flexible > - Pragmatic > > The last one, pragmatic, applies to Claude's point. Various definitions of > pragmatic include: > > - "solving problems in a sensible way that suits the conditions that > really exist now, rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas, or rules" [2] > - "of or relating to a practical point of view or practical > considerations." [3] > - "involving or emphasizing practical results rather than theories and > ideas" [4] > > With respect to Mark's proposal, deprecating back-ticks: maybe it's more > pragmatic to have a single, well-defined, and obvious way to invoke an > external process. Sure, yet PHP isn't just "pragmatic". It's also flexible > and general-purpose. Flexible is the opposite of rigid, meaning there are > circumstances where a second way, or even a third way, may provide more > practical utility than the single canonical interface. General-purpose > means a language is useful in many ways. PHP while "especially suited for > web-development" is also useful as an ad-hoc shell scripting language and, > in that context, back-ticks are welcomed. > > If we take back-ticks away, we hobble the "quick-scripting for personal > use" flexibility in favor of the enterprise-grade "distributed development, > high code-reuse and review" architecture. That seems to run counter to the > nature of PHP. > > [1]:https://www.php.net > [2]:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pragmatic > [3]:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pragmatic > [4]:https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/pragmatic >
That's written as "features" not "goals", you know what goal is? Goal is like a mission, a statement written to be taken seriously. Checkout python.org you will see an example of what goal is, written clearly as "mission" not "features and what it is/does". I rest my case.
>
  107456
October 9, 2019 17:57 bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:41 PM Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 9:20 PM Claude Pache pache@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > > Le 7 oct. 2019 à 22:06, Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> a >>> écrit : >>> > > >>> > > What's the goal of PHP? >>> > >>> > One important goal is (like many programming languages) to get work >>> done. >>> > >>> I disagree, coz this seems to be a goal cooked up by you(even if I might >>> believe in the general idea of that goal, I still can't believe it until >>> I >>> see where it was outlined). >>> >> >> I think the PHP web-site[1] supports Claude's statement: >> >> "PHP is a popular general-purpose scripting language that is especially >> suited to web development. >> Fast, flexible and pragmatic, PHP powers everything from your blog to the >> most popular websites in the world." >> >> The adjectives used: >> >> - General-purpose >> - Fast >> - Flexible >> - Pragmatic >> >> The last one, pragmatic, applies to Claude's point. Various definitions >> of pragmatic include: >> >> - "solving problems in a sensible way that suits the conditions that >> really exist now, rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas, or rules" [2] >> - "of or relating to a practical point of view or practical >> considerations." [3] >> - "involving or emphasizing practical results rather than theories >> and ideas" [4] >> >> With respect to Mark's proposal, deprecating back-ticks: maybe it's more >> pragmatic to have a single, well-defined, and obvious way to invoke an >> external process. Sure, yet PHP isn't just "pragmatic". It's also flexible >> and general-purpose. Flexible is the opposite of rigid, meaning there are >> circumstances where a second way, or even a third way, may provide more >> practical utility than the single canonical interface. General-purpose >> means a language is useful in many ways. PHP while "especially suited for >> web-development" is also useful as an ad-hoc shell scripting language and, >> in that context, back-ticks are welcomed. >> >> If we take back-ticks away, we hobble the "quick-scripting for personal >> use" flexibility in favor of the enterprise-grade "distributed development, >> high code-reuse and review" architecture. That seems to run counter to the >> nature of PHP. >> >> [1]:https://www.php.net >> [2]:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pragmatic >> [3]:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pragmatic >> [4]:https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/pragmatic >> > > That's written as "features" not "goals", you know what goal is? > > Goal is like a mission, a statement written to be taken seriously. > Checkout python.org you will see an example of what goal is, written > clearly as "mission" not "features and what it is/does". > > I rest my case. >
"The main goal of the language is to allow web developers to write dynamically generated web pages quickly, but you can do much more with PHP." [1] If you're referring to the mission of the Python Software Foundation, you will not find an analogue in the PHP world. PHP does not have a steering organization like that. The PHP Group holds copyright, but exercises no sanctioned governance. "The people writing the code get to call the shots, for better or worse." [2] We are a developer confederation, each individual with their own goals who all have a passion for PHP the language, and we work as best we can together to achieve them. It'd be nice to elevate our confederation to a collective, with a steering board and clear guidance, but that's -- perhaps -- a Sisyphean task. [1]:https://www.php.net/manual/en/preface.php [2]:https://externals.io/message/107079
  107457
October 9, 2019 18:13 mo.mu.wss@gmail.com ("M. W. Moe")
Hello,

I don't understand why people complain about PHP in term of comparison; if
they like more C# or python why don't just
go there?

historically php is a kind of C like dialect with some perlish running thru
an apache-mod giving the opportunity
to break free from the CGI cumbersome  world; the change-reload-zero-config
was `magic`; writing web-forms
became fast and easy.

PHP has still this advantage (or regain it) fast and dirty; totally hindie.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:58 AM Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019, 3:41 PM Bishop Bettini <bishop@php.net> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:21 PM Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, 9:20 PM Claude Pache pache@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > > Le 7 oct. 2019 à 22:06, Olumide Samson <oludonsexy@gmail.com> a > >>> écrit : > >>> > > > >>> > > What's the goal of PHP? > >>> > > >>> > One important goal is (like many programming languages) to get work > >>> done. > >>> > > >>> I disagree, coz this seems to be a goal cooked up by you(even if I > might > >>> believe in the general idea of that goal, I still can't believe it > until > >>> I > >>> see where it was outlined). > >>> > >> > >> I think the PHP web-site[1] supports Claude's statement: > >> > >> "PHP is a popular general-purpose scripting language that is especially > >> suited to web development. > >> Fast, flexible and pragmatic, PHP powers everything from your blog to > the > >> most popular websites in the world." > >> > >> The adjectives used: > >> > >> - General-purpose > >> - Fast > >> - Flexible > >> - Pragmatic > >> > >> The last one, pragmatic, applies to Claude's point. Various definitions > >> of pragmatic include: > >> > >> - "solving problems in a sensible way that suits the conditions that > >> really exist now, rather than obeying fixed theories, ideas, or > rules" [2] > >> - "of or relating to a practical point of view or practical > >> considerations." [3] > >> - "involving or emphasizing practical results rather than theories > >> and ideas" [4] > >> > >> With respect to Mark's proposal, deprecating back-ticks: maybe it's more > >> pragmatic to have a single, well-defined, and obvious way to invoke an > >> external process. Sure, yet PHP isn't just "pragmatic". It's also > flexible > >> and general-purpose. Flexible is the opposite of rigid, meaning there > are > >> circumstances where a second way, or even a third way, may provide more > >> practical utility than the single canonical interface. General-purpose > >> means a language is useful in many ways. PHP while "especially suited > for > >> web-development" is also useful as an ad-hoc shell scripting language > and, > >> in that context, back-ticks are welcomed. > >> > >> If we take back-ticks away, we hobble the "quick-scripting for personal > >> use" flexibility in favor of the enterprise-grade "distributed > development, > >> high code-reuse and review" architecture. That seems to run counter to > the > >> nature of PHP. > >> > >> [1]:https://www.php.net > >> [2]:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pragmatic > >> [3]:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/pragmatic > >> [4]: > https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/pragmatic > >> > > > > That's written as "features" not "goals", you know what goal is? > > > > Goal is like a mission, a statement written to be taken seriously. > > Checkout python.org you will see an example of what goal is, written > > clearly as "mission" not "features and what it is/does". > > > > I rest my case. > > > > "The main goal of the language is to allow web developers to write > dynamically generated web pages quickly, but you can do much more with > PHP." [1] > > If you're referring to the mission of the Python Software Foundation, you > will not find an analogue in the PHP world. PHP does not have a steering > organization like that. The PHP Group holds copyright, but exercises no > sanctioned governance. "The people writing the code get to call the shots, > for better or worse." [2] We are a developer confederation, each individual > with their own goals who all have a passion for PHP the language, and we > work as best we can together to achieve them. It'd be nice to elevate our > confederation to a collective, with a steering board and clear guidance, > but that's -- perhaps -- a Sisyphean task. > [1]:https://www.php.net/manual/en/preface.php > [2]:https://externals.io/message/107079 >