Yeah I used to play them a lot when I was at college, I never really got into the new mobile games, candy crush etc. Shame they aren't as popular anymore.

It's web primarily, but can be played on Facebook also, but I'll probably drop support for this in time once third-party cookie support is dropped.

I always wonder why PHP never seems to favour making breaking changes to keep things cleaner, if you aren't going to improve language constructs in a major version, when will they be cleaned up?

PHP 8 has plenty of breaking changes (https://github.com/php/php-src/blob/08e6c209550a268500bbdef4...), mostly in the department of throwing errors more aggressively, and fixing some long-standing "features" (like 0 == "foobar" being true). But there's a budget to this, and you have to strike a balance between how much code you break and what benefit you get out it.

I think that post Python 3 nobody is going to do that.

It would be interesting to see a fork which removed all the crud though. Something that was easy to use for the person doing occaisional web work or beginner but without the traps and pitfalls.

Python 3 attempted too much change at once. The Python folks could have spread incremental rollout of the changes across several major version numbers and probably not have faced such slow adoption.

> Python 3 attempted too much change at once.

Python 3 got this so, so wrong. It changed enough to break everyone's code, but not enough to make upgrading worthwhile.

It could have changed more, or changed less - done right, either would have been better than what actually happened.

I'm not sure that they could have spread it out. I believe that was the point of Python 3. Still, PHP may end up in the exact same position Python was in for the last decade, if they tried to do a similar change.

It could be worse of cause, they could end up like Perl 6 (now Raku), which makes Python 3 look like a successful transition in comparison.

I thought the problem was carrying on support for 2.xx too long. Some people will never move on unless they are forced to.

>It would be interesting to see a fork which removed all the crud though.

My understanding was that some of that already exists in Hack. Although it seems they might've not gone far enough.

Good point :)

This is a bit like people arguing over the what noise should be made when the "tree falls in the woods and no one hears it".

Will this profitably mine bitcoins? :p

No.

I feel like the designers of the test have to take more blame here. Having a test that was "just show us once and that's it" seems like a really bad test design.

Randomly testing vehicles after they've been produced should have always been part of the testing strategy. Shouldn't have been relying on a random researcher to catch them.

Would be like testing an Athlete once for steroids then never testing them again, ever.

Would not have caught this. Every time the vehicle is randomly tested it would have entered cheat mode.

"Random test" means taking a production vehicle of any age, and testing it in real world conditions. Basically putting measurement devices over the exhaust and driving it on the highway, not in a lab.

It's less scientific but also so much more scientific if you expect the object you are measuring to be cheating in lab conditions - and they should be expecting that.

that isn't a very random test then.