Re: [RFC Proposal] var keyword deprecation/removal
| From: | Fleshgrinder | Date: | Sat, 05 Mar 2016 11:26:36 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC Proposal] var keyword deprecation/removal | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-91508@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 3/4/2016 10:39 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
> wrote in message news:56D86C00.6000904@fleshgrinder.com...
>>
>> On 3/3/2016 10:34 AM, Tony Marston wrote:
>>> If you want to avoid such confusion over alias names then surely that
>>> would be an argument against introducing aliases in the first place. In
>>> this case the short array syntax would never have been introduced as the
>>> (only slightly longer) long array syntax had already existed since
>>> day #1.
>>
>> No, that is not what one should conclude from it. Short array syntax was
>> added by popular demand
>
> Really? Exactly how many of the millions of PHP developers out there
> voted for this change?
I was not part of the decision back then, however, it was how I received
the addition of the feature.
>> and hence for a very good reason. The fact that
>> there are no plans regarding the old syntax and thus keeping the
>> duplication indefinitely is the actual problem.
>
> Is it actually a "problem"? How many books and articles on PHP
> programming are out there which use the "old" syntax? How much confusion
> would it cause if the "old" and well known syntax were to be dropped?
> How many applications would suddenly stop working? How much effort would
> be required in userland to fix this state of affairs? How many swear
> words would these userland developers have for the language developers?
> There are NO sideeffects of leaving aliases in the language. It would
> take NO effort to leave them in, but it would take effort to take them
> out which includes updating immense volumes of documentation. The only
> "problem" is that it offends the delicate sensibilities of a few
> "purist" developers who cannot understand the difference between
> improving the language and breaking it.
The argument in regards to books and articles is imho irrelevant. Nobody
learns Java 8 with a Java 2 book; nor do you learn PHP 8 with a PHP 4
book. This is just silly.
The upgrade path is important and not the fact that some 15+ year old
applications might not work anymore. Rowan Collins makes a much better
case here with his arguments instead of nagging at the stale argument of
"we need to support every line of (bad) code out there".
PHP being a mess is still one of the most quoted arguments against PHP!
> Only if it results in an actual and measurable improvement. Changes for
> "purity" or "consistency" do NOT fall into this category.
This is your believe and you know that many people disagrees with you on
this; you just commented on the "[RFC] Deprecations for PHP 7.1" thread
and we have much more of those RFCs and threads.
--
Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc
Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc