Re: [PHP-DEV] parent_ctor() From: Andi Gutmans (andi <email protected>)
Date: 07/17/00

At 20:10 17/07/2000 +0300, Zeev Suraski wrote:
>At 19:57 17-07-00, waldschrott wrote:
>>>saying that it won't benefit at all - perhaps Kristian would find it
>>>indispensable for PHPlib, but the vast majority of Web developers would
>>>not. And with all due respect to PHPlib, we won't change the PHP
>>>language theme and concept to be a better framework for PHPlib.
>>
>>You´re to negative. I´m sure there are numerous advanced apps which could
>>benefit from *some* improvements and I do respect Kristians involvement
>>trying to influence PHPs development in a way PHP would profit of. (He
>>noticed what would make sense and why).
>
>Well, if you summarize my entire view and reasoning on this issue, then
>yes, clearly I'm against it. The price to pay is high, it would benefit a
>very small number of very-large-scale projects, which aren't common to PHP
>or the Web in general, and goes against the theme of PHP. Weighting
>everything together - it's a clear 'no'.
>
>> > I don't see how it makes big projects impossible. In fact, I know for
>> > a fact it doesn't, because quite huge projects use PHP successfully,
>> > and are completely maintainable (and maintained). As I see it, PHP
>> > targets big projects, BUT only if it doesn't hurt its much much
>> wider > and common audience, of medium and small scale projects.
>>
>>Hm, I´ve been to dramatic, sure. But it´s much easier to maintain (def
>>maintain: bug fix, exetend, transform apps) OO code in my opition.
>
>And to that extent, PHP's OO support is quite useful and usable. If
>you're willing to pay the performance price, you're invited to use it.
>
>>Offering some extended functionality witht PHP4 and saying that it´s a
>>language which should in every part be easy to learn and the main target
>>audience is the vast majority of unexperienced html constructors which
>>should be enabled to add same dynamic functions will close the way to
>>PHP5 or later versions I think.
>>PHP could become more feature rich, regarding functions and extensions,
>>not more not less.
>>I understand Kristian, I´ve stumbled into some problems too, I could work
>>around but at some points only the ugly way.
>>
>>Andi´s latest post was a lot more positive.
>
>Andi and I don't completely see eye-to-eye on all of the issues. However,
>the fact that we're not going to make any downwards incompatible changes,
>and that we're not going to introduce a whole new object system, are
>given, and we agree on that completely. If we add any new functionality
>to the PHP object model (e.g. private methods), it's going to build on top
>of the existing object model, and not replace it.

Yes but we do agree on two main things.
First of all we both would like to see support for $foo->blah()->barbara
Secondly, if possible, we both don't mind supporting private members. The
biggest problem here is that we haven't come up with a fast solution for this.

Andi 

---
Andi Gutmans <andi <email protected>>
http://www.zend.com/

-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, e-mail: php-dev-unsubscribe <email protected>
For additional commands, e-mail: php-dev-help <email protected>
To contact the list administrators, e-mail: php-list-admin <email protected>