On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rene Veerman wrote: >> >> unless the actual php development team would like to weigh in on this >> matter of course. > > Wrong list. Subscribe to internals. > >> yes, i do consider it that important. > >> these nay-sayers usually also lobby the dev-team to such extent that >> these features would actually not make it into php. > > It's a debate. The dev team consider proposals and weigh in on the merits. I > was a proponent for goto support during the development of PHP 5. We now > have it. If you arguments are valid and there's no technical issue > preventing it, and there's someone with time and skill to created the > functionality, then it will happen. If not then it won't. I've seen many > things added to PHP and I've watched and participated in the threads on > internals that have lead to many new features. This is open source, opinions > matter, but personal attacks and poor argument do not really make the cut. > hahaha... you dismiss what i believe to be valid explanations without any counter-argument besides "more sql hardware!", not just by me but by all advocates of threading&shared memory in php. for some reason, which is still not clear to me, you nay-sayers refuse to let a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE (not a "hammer", not a "fishing boat") evolve to stay useful, relevant even, in a changing market. and you're blatantly telling me to use a different kind of "hammer", one that would force me to rewrite large sections of my existing code-base, and one that i have told you i would find for many other _valid_ reasons not optimal. basically, you're determining my choice of options without me ever having forced you to do something a certain way.. so you'll have to excuse my strong language. it's just letting you know that you shouldn't butt into other peoples business when it doesn't really affect you. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
