Re: [RFC] [Discussion] Bound-Erased Generic Types

On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 at 11:15, Gina P. Banyard <internals@gpb.moe> wrote: > As you already know from off list discussion I will vote against this RFC.. > I've laid my arguments in a blog post on my website. [1] > > The only thing I take offence to is saying my attempt/proposal has stalled. > Me not actively working on it 24/7 doesn't mean it stalled, and I had > started working on it earlier in the year before this RFC landed, or I was > aware you were working on something. > > Best regards, > > Gina P. Banyard > > [1] https://gpb.moe/blog/opinion-bound-erased-generics.html Thanks for this article! It's a very thorough set of complaints. A few central assertions jumped out to me: > assuming this survey had a representative sample of PHP users ... and that nobody uses both PHPStan and Psalm at the same time ... we would get at best 44% of users employing SA tools. A far cry from the 90% number I’m constantly told In that same survey [1], 68% of respondents say they use PhpStorm, and static analysis is one of the *main *reasons people use PhpStorm. That easily gets us to >80% of survey respondents using some sort of static analysis tool in their flow, accounting for people using more than one. > Indeed, the majority of static analysis tools introduced additional atomic types that do not exist within PHP — class-string, non-empty-list, positive-int, numeric ... I want to say — as the person who came up with most of those — that some of the docblock types do go a little overboard. But the generic ones are on the money. Best wishes, Matt [1] https://blog.jetbrains.com/phpstorm/2025/10/state-of-php-2025/#most-used-ide-or-editor