Nathan Rixham wrote: > Per Jessen wrote: >> Nathan Rixham wrote: >> >>> Tony Marston wrote: >>>> If you really *need* to used a staticly typed language then don't >>>> use PHP, and don't try to change PHP to match your needs. >>> why not? >> >> Because your desired functionality is already satisfied by other >> programming languages. PHP is an interpreted language with all the >> strengths and weaknesses that come with it. A need for static or >> compile-time typing is a need for a different language, honestly. >> >> >> /Per Jessen, Zürich >> > > why so strongly against having *optional* static typing? > You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't/shouldn't have strong and loose typing in the same language. In my opinion. > IMHO if it was to classify all the languages (specifically server side > languages for web apps), PHP has 95% of the features i need, the rest > come no where near, so it's the obvious candidate to get this > remaining 5% that'd make it perfect and open it up to a whole set of > new users and markets. _If_ the remaining 5% will really "open it up to a whole set of new users and markets", all you have to do is sit back and wait. I'm not so sure though. One of the great things about PHP is that it is easy and approachable for beginners, also without formal computer science training. Write some code, bang it in a webserver, and bob's your uncle. If we make PHP more complex, we might well lose that. By all means create a PHP++, but leave PHP as it is. It has enough "feature"-bloat already. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
