Re: [RFC] Static class

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 8:04 PM Stephen Reay <php-lists@koalephant.com> wrote: > > > On 28 Jun 2024, at 14:05, Lynn <kjarli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 2:48 AM Mike Schinkel <mike@newclarity.net> wrote: > >> >> and inheritance is not meant for code reuse. >> >> Just because code reuse in inheritance can be problematic it does not >> have to be in all-cases. Moderation in all things. I used that approach for >> 10+ years and never once had any of the problems people claim about using >> inheritance for code reuse. This was likely because my needs were >> constrained by the use-case and by nature did not grow out of control with >> complexity. >> > > My experience is the opposite. There are subtle bugs I keep running into > with static function and properties causing unexpected behavior. I'm not > against having static classes open by default for the sake of consistency, > though my preference would be to avoid the headache altogether and just > make them final by default so I won't ever have to deal with it. Would > traits not solve the problem of horizontal reuse? > > > Hi Lynn, > > I understand it's frustrating when there are bugs/unexpected behaviour, > but wouldn't the (existing) *ability* to add the final > keyword to a class > solve those issues for you, without preventing others from using the > capabilities of parent/child class relationships? > > > Cheers > > > Stephen > The main issue is that it's easy to mess up by default and not messing up requires you to understand why. I prefer defensive programming, close it and only open when it's really required. If there's legit scenarios where you need inheritance in a static context the requirement could be an "open" keyword or removing it being final, we can't do it the other way around without massive BC break.