Re: [RFC] Deprecate Backtick Operator (V2)

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 <claude.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]::Æ—U¡€Ô > ™LéF+Ahttps://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. >