Re: About PHP6 ...

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > Kris Craig wrote: > >> Well now we're arguing semantics. Seeing as how you have to include these >> filters and the results only make-up a tiny fraction of the total-- >> combined with the fact that those results are all from more than half a >> decade ago-- I think the word "few" is generous. >> > > Which is why I targeted books currently actively being sold on Amazon ... > all of which have little to do with any of the new planning for PHPX. But > results produced by both google and bing perhaps indicate why there was > never a windows 4,5 or 6. People are more than used to strange naming > sequences, and while I would happily accept a switch to PHP'X', PHP6 may > not have been distributed but it has a very real existence in development > work. > > So I'm with Zeev, Andi and others. Searching just PHP sites, PHP7 only > comes up a few times and in context of further changes to those planned in > PHP6 previously. Even Rasmus has pointed out that the existing PHP6 plans > documented in all those premature books, many of which are available as > ebboks now, was more than just unicode, so how would a novice know if they > are looking at newPHP6 or oldPHP6 material? > > What about the thousands of books on PHP 5 that is about PHP 5.2 or 5.1 still? If somebody wants to learn PHP 5 and they buy a book, how would they know if they are going to learn 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 to or get outdated information about 5.2? For that reason why was PHP 5.3 never named PHP 7 and PHP 5.4 named PHP 8 to avoid confusion with authors still writing about PHP 5.2? So how about going with PHP 6.1? There are many resources that specifically target PHP 5.3 and 5.4 and 5.5, so authors can do the same for 6.1 If someone wants to learn the latest version of PHP, they would just google for books on PHP 6.1 and not ask questions about why there is a version 7 without a version 6.