YANP (Yet Another Namespace Proposal) for PHP

**pachanga** · Jul 21, 2005 05:30

There's a guy Jessie Hernandez who is actively working on namespace implementation for PHP: http://news.php.net/php.internals/17304

It's pretty amazing...

**wdeboer** · Jul 21, 2005 05:37

Yes, but I am still waiting for their reply on my ideas/comments <g>

**Tanus** · Jul 21, 2005 06:38

Don't know if I'd go so far as to call it amazing, but it's definitely promising

. We've tried working around it with things like using/import() and __autoload to define where to find classes, but this would be so so so much better.

**Galo** · Jul 21, 2005 06:58

Looks exiting..... keep it working...

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 21, 2005 09:02

You won't give up with your quest for namespaces will you....

.... Ruby has namespace /module support

**pachanga** · Jul 21, 2005 09:25

Originally Posted by MiiJaySung

You won't give up with your quest for namespaces will you....

Heh

I already had class names clashes with PHP 5.1 spl and was forced to append useless prefixes...

.... Ruby has namespace /module support

Yeah, i know, i spent the last night admiring Ruby specs...

**Dr Livingston** · Jul 21, 2005 10:21

Ruby has namespace /module support

Really?? Is there anything that Ruby doesn't have, or isn't capable of? Can it make me a cup of coffee huh?

Didn't think so

**wdeboer** · Jul 21, 2005 11:21

Well, Ruby isn't capable of being a pretty language

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 21, 2005 11:30

Originally Posted by Dr Livingston

Really?? Is there anything that Ruby doesn't have, or isn't capable of? Can it make me a cup of coffee huh?

Didn't think so

How did I guess you were gonna leave a response to that comment! :P

Ruby doesn't have a totally stupid company called "Zend" screwing the language up

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 21, 2005 11:33

Originally Posted by wdeboer

Well, Ruby isn't capable of being a pretty language

That's a bit daft to say. Read a rails app, then read a PHP app. You'll see what's more elegant and more expressive. We are trialing Ruby for new work at work, and as it stands Ruby needs only a small fraction of code, it's more readable and we will be able to work about 2-3 faster (well it's not quite that fast yet as the boss and I are still learning certain things)

**BerislavLopac** · Jul 21, 2005 11:59

What do you mean by @@more_readable!?

P.S. Python also has namespaces, y' know. Lots o' them. And Java too (it calls them packages). And C++. And C#. And probably other languages I know nothing about.

**bonefry** · Jul 21, 2005 12:12

Oh common, not again. People, stop talking about Ruby. It's getting old.
OK, I think we all get it. Ruby is good. So what ? So is Python. So is Perl.
We are talking PHP here.

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 21, 2005 12:32

For those who don't realise the only reason I jokingly brought up the topic of Ruby was because I was discusing Ruby with pachanga a while back before I started learning / using it, and he jokingly asked 'has it got namespace support?' over MSN as I know that pachanga has a lot of woes with PHP5 dropping namespace support.

Had it been anyone else, I wouldn't have mentioned Ruby seeing as it looks like it turned into a swear word here (Maybe the the moderators will replace it with stared '*'s for us

)

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 21, 2005 12:41

Originally Posted by BerislavLopac

What do you mean by @@more_readable!?

.

OK Let's start using C++

Code:

Staff* staff = dynamic_cast<Staff*>(person);
if (staff != NULL) {
    ::std::cout << staff->getName();
}

Of course that is more readable than

Code:

puts person.name if person.instance_of? Person

or even (just so we don't leave PHP out

)

Code:

if ($person instanceOf Staff) echo $person->name;

**Dr Livingston** · Jul 21, 2005 12:57

Well,

PHP Code:


if ($person instanceOf Staff) echo $person->name;

I'm sorry, but I find that a lot more expressive than the other examples you've posted.

But let's not all get silly on this now...

How did I guess you were gonna leave a response to that comment!

I'm watching your posts from now on

Btw, it is a lowercase 'p' you need to use for the smillie

(see what I mean?)

**bonefry** · Jul 21, 2005 13:18

Originally Posted by MiiJaySung

OK Let's start using C++

Code:

Staff* staff = dynamic_cast<Staff*>(person);
if (staff != NULL) {
    ::std::cout << staff->getName();
}

Of course that is more readable than

Code:

puts person.name if person.instance_of? Person

or even (just so we don't leave PHP out

)

Code:

if ($person instanceOf Staff) echo $person->name;

Dude, don't forget Java

:

Code:

            
Method myMethod = person.getClass().getMethod("getName");
System.out.println(myMethod.invoke(person));

**bonefry** · Jul 21, 2005 13:25

Sorry for this other post but apparently it appears it can be written like this:

Code:

System.out.println(person.getClass().getMethod("getName").invoke(person));

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 21, 2005 17:10

Originally Posted by bonefry

Sorry for this other post but apparently it appears it can be written like this:

Code:

System.out.println(person.getClass().getMethod("getName").invoke(person));

Oh it's a good thing I don't use/know Java. What a farce! It's hardly much (if at all) more readable than the C++ version. I can see myself loosing my sainity when I go to uni and get forced into the evil world of Java.

**bonefry** · Jul 22, 2005 00:28

Originally Posted by MiiJaySung

Oh it's a good thing I don't use/know Java. What a farce! It's hardly much (if at all) more readable than the C++ version. I can see myself loosing my sainity when I go to uni and get forced into the evil world of Java.

Hmm... dude, go out, see the world

. Are you telling me C++ templates are more readable than the Java reflection api ? Sorry, but you're just religious about it. Oh yeah, you like @@more_readable languages

.

**MiiJaySung** · Jul 22, 2005 03:28

Originally Posted by bonefry

Hmm... dude, go out, see the world

. Are you telling me C++ templates are more readable than the Java reflection api ? Sorry, but you're just religious about it. Oh yeah, you like @@more_readable languages

.

No, I just detest Java with a passion. Java seems so pointless to me. Java has failed to replace C++, after all they seem to have given into using C++ idioms that they once frowned upon, such as Templates / Generics. Java just seems a totally unnatural language. For a start, why does everything need strict static typing in a bytecode / "scripting" (I use the term loosely here language loosely as it's not used as a scripting language, but used in places where scripting is used commonly like web development) language.

Java is a bloat. All the tools and downloads you need to get to use it are huge and cumbersome when you compare it to PHP, Python, or Ruby.

**bonefry** · Jul 22, 2005 03:51

Hmm, flame...

Java has failed to replace C++
It wasn't meant to replace C++

...that they once frowned upon, such as Templates / Generics
Generics are not templates. Please note I know what I am talking about.

Java just seems a totally unnatural language
I could say the same thing about Ruby

For a start, why does everything need strict static typing in a bytecode / "scripting" language
For security. Because it is general purpose. And any oppinions you might have here are highly debatable. Also note that unlike C++ Java is semi-dynamic. Also, Groovy kicks as* and there's also Jython and also many other scripting languages build on top of Java.

Java is a bloat.
Can you build Java on top of Python or Ruby or PHP ? No. Also, not very healthy to have such an oppinion towards the world's most used enterprise language.

**siteartwork** · Jul 22, 2005 04:41

Sounds good, looks good. I posted a similiar concept some months ago in my blog (http://blog.siteartwork.de/?sectionid=2) - I'd be glad to see that it works

**bonefry** · Jul 22, 2005 04:50

Java style namespaces aren't that good for PHP. A better approach would be Python style modules, where a namespace is associated with a directory:
http://docs.python.org/tut/node8.html
I like them allot. Very clean.

**Ryan Wray** · Jul 22, 2005 04:51

In regards to post #14, by MiiJaySung, I find the PHP the most readable. Fair enough, I am not a Ruby developer, but here are 2 good reasons why I find this:

You have the condition after the action. In the mindset of a programmer, it is usually the other way round (ie. if condition is true, print person name).
The question mark after the ?, adds to the confusion.

However, I think anyone (with appropiate OO knowledge) would understand the PHP code.

It could be biased, or simply my opinion though.

**bonefry** · Jul 22, 2005 04:58

Originally Posted by Ryan Wray

In regards to post #14, by MiiJaySung, I find the PHP the most readable. Fair enough, I am not a Ruby developer, but here are 2 good reasons why I find this:

You have the condition after the action. In the mindset of a programmer, it is usually the other way round (ie. if condition is true, print person name).
The question mark after the ?, adds to the confusion.

However, I think anyone (with appropiate OO knowledge) would understand the PHP code.

It could be biased, or simply my opinion though.

Highlly debatable and innacurate your point of view. Don't forget everyone thinks in the language he knows.

User Tag List

Thread: YANP (Yet Another Namespace Proposal) for PHP

Thread Tools

Display

YANP (Yet Another Namespace Proposal) for PHP

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions