Re: [PHP-LANG] "Mission Statement"

> At 17:16 21-11-00, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > > I don't think that a compiler spec is useful, helping Microsoft's .NET (or
> > > other forking bodies, like GPL fanatics) team isn't on my agenda either and
> > > I don't think that it would be beneficial for the PHP project at all (and
> > > I'm sure most people here feel the same).  There's theory, and there's
> > > reality, and the spec you're talking about is a purely theoretical,
> > > useful-for-forking, fairly-useless-for-practical-use type of spec.
> >
> >     You should not be worried about your investment into Zend.
> >     The Zend engine will still be the number one choice for a
> >     long time. If the engine maintains its technical lead, users
> >     will stay with you and your product folio.
>
> I'm not worried - I don't see the point in aiming at a document that would
> help forks, though.  Forks are not such an unlikely thing to happen (e.g.,
> that GPL fanatic guy that mailed group@ the other day).  I'm not really
> worried about him, but I sure don't want to help him breaking PHP up.

If a fork happens, I would rather have a compatible fork that an
incompatible one.  If someone else builds something that can take any PHP
script and run it perfectly, more power to them.  I don't think the
existence of a document like this is going to encourage nor discourage a
fork.  And this certainly should not be an argument against writing an
accurate spec.

> >         Can you name me any language which was harmed by a
> >         standardization effort?
>
> I don't know really, I haven't studied languages history.  I know that what
> the users would want is a user-oriented document, and not a
> compiler-spec.  A compiler spec will probably not be too harmful (even
> though it'll encourage forks, to some degree), but I agree with Rasmus that
> this should not be the main concern of this forum.

I think we have all agreed already that the document should include a
concise description of the language in some sort of standard language
description syntax.  This is basically a compiler spec if that is what you
want to call it.  And along with that we have end-user oriented notes and
examples.  And as I said before, if Sascha only wants to write the
"compiler spec" part of it, I don't see that being a problem.  Others can
pitch in with examples and notes.

-Rasmus