Re: Static properties

Hello Jochem, Wednesday, April 26, 2006, 9:39:40 PM, you wrote: > Marcus Boerger wrote: >> Hello Jochem, > hi Marcus, >>>(anyone with the argument that PHP!=Ruby or PHP!=Javascript might consider that >>>PHP!="the OO paradigm") >> >> >> PHP simply supports its own set and view of OO. >> > indeed, which is more than fair, but I doubt you would deny that the 'set/view' > you speak of is set in stone - then goals post do move now and again because of > new developer wishes and/or insights into usage in the real world. It turned out that nothing really is set in stone in PHP. >> >>>> >>>>>Was this not possible because of the engine implementation of the static >>>>>properties? >>>>> >> >> >> It is just some decision that was taken that the newer OO stuff should be a >> bit more strict. > 'a bit'? ;-) that said your answer is honest and to the point and makes the > position of the devs clear - which is a good thing - knowing exactly what kind of > dogfood is on offer allows for informed decision by the user. > I realise that it must be difficult to strike a balance between those that > strive to drive the language to ever greater heights of > <buzzword>enterprise-readiness</buzzword> > and the lower echalons that protest/struggle against/with the increasing > strictness of the language. (personally I find myself in between ... and sometimes > finding it hard to keep my existing code compliant :-) balance is the keyword here. >> >> Best regards, >> Marcus > many thanks for your clarification. no problem Best regards, Marcus