Re: Re: Improving PHP's type system

On 4/19/2016 4:36 AM, Tom Worster wrote: > On 4/18/16 4:34 AM, Tony Marston wrote: > >> I repeat, where was the insult in the post in question? What exactly >> were the insulting words? > > I chose just one example: > >> Those who cannot write effective software without these "clever" >> additions to the language are doing nothing but announcing to the >> world that they are not clever enough to write effective software >> using their own limited abilities. > > I think it's hard to avoid construing an implication that people > proposing and/or supporting changes to how PHP handles type in the > current discussions here are incompetent programmers. > > There's no doubt that this sentence posits a class of incompetent > programmers who need crutches ('these "clever" additions') and a > complementary class of competent programmer who don't. Saying so is > pointless without some assignment (imaginary, implied or real) of > individuals to the classes. It's hard to imagine that present company or > the people whose interests we attempt to represent are not involved in > the assignment. I find this a bit insulting. > > Insult is something experienced as well as something performed. If > enough people experience it then probably it was performed, regardless > of intent. So to this extent I just disagree that... > >> The fact that you don't like what I say does >> not make it an insult. > > "It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear" > > > But we are now completely off topic. To bring us back on topic I repeat > my request that you try to be specific about what you want and why, with > respect to the RFCs under discussion. > > Tom > > Very well said! :) -- Richard "Fleshgrinder" Fussenegger

Attachment: [application/pgp-signature] OpenPGP digital signature signature.asc