3 ms·

I think that Rasmus and Anthony seem to have two different thoughts on the word "vision". Anthony was very specific in the fact that his concept of a "vision" i

I think that Rasmus and Anthony seem to have two different thoughts on the word "vision". Anthony was very specific in the fact that his concept of a "vision" is about the paradigms PHP supports: > 1. "PHP Should Strive To Be A Full Featured Object Oriented Language". > 2. "PHP Should Remain A Procedural Language WIth Some OO Features" > 3. "PHP Should Be Implementation Neutral, and Support All Paradigms Equally". Rasmus' response was more general, about the vision for who and what they'd like to enable with the language. There may be a bit of cross over, but they are two distinctly different views. And for what its worth, I think both are correct. I think PHP should choose to be one of the three things Anthony suggested, and stick to it. This would help in discussions about what features to take on board in new versions. I also think that Rasumus is right in that PHP is a general purpose scripting language with a focus on web development. However this is more about the type of people you will get interested in using and contributing to the language. EDIT: Grammar

smsm42 14y ago
How using vague terms like "Full Featured Object Oriented Language" is "very specific"? Every OO language out there has different set of features, and the only thing this definition is useful is for bashing opponents over the head with "ah, you don't want this feature? But language X has it, and our vision says we have to be full-featured, so we need to add it no matter what!" Java has checked exceptions? Then PHP should have checked exceptions, otherwise it's not full-featured. And so on. I don't see this as specific vision, but rather as a cart-blanche to abandon reason and consideration. I'm not sure if "specific vision" is possible but using vague undefined terms like "full featured" does not make it specific and it is impossible to reasonably "stick" to it as nobody really knows what it means.

smsm42 14y ago

How using vague terms like "Full Featured Object Oriented Language" is "very specific"? Every OO language out there has different set of features, and the only thing this definition is useful is for bashing opponents over the head with "ah, you don't want this feature? But language X has it, and our vision says we have to be full-featured, so we need to add it no matter what!" Java has checked exceptions? Then PHP should have checked exceptions, otherwise it's not full-featured. And so on. I don't see this as specific vision, but rather as a cart-blanche to abandon reason and consideration. I'm not sure if "specific vision" is possible but using vague undefined terms like "full featured" does not make it specific and it is impossible to reasonably "stick" to it as nobody really knows what it means.