|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 03/16/07 01:02
Jamie wrote:
> In <z5KdnSo5vd-qpmTYnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> mentions:
>> True, if you're running 1K inserts per second it can make a difference.
>> For most perl and PHP isn't doing nearly that much. And if you need
>> the performance boost, a compiled language would provide a greater boost
>> than just using placeholders.
>
> The thing is, this cache happens server-side (server relative to the DBM
> server)
>
> In the case of n-number of web server processes, it matters because you'll
> likely have fewer DBM resources. Compiled web programs won't even help
> you here as this stage happens on the database.
>
> But, this is pretty much a moot point for mysql, unless mysql has implemented
> placeholders and I haven't heard about it.
>
> I will only add that placeholders also shield you from many SQL injection
> bugs. Something that is nice to have around.
>
So this is a database issue and not a language issue then.
>> Obviously you don't understand PHP very well. I've been programming
>> since the early 4.0.x and currently am at 5.2.1. I can't remember when
>> I've had to chance any code for a new release. Use good programming
>> practices and upgrades are painless.
>
> It depends on who installed the PHP binary server-side. I've smacked my
> head into this wall a number of times. PHP 5.n looked really promising,
> I ported my stuff to it.. and soon discovered almost all the ISP's out
> there are still using PHP 4... and continue to use PHP 4.
>
Not all. There are a number which are using PHP 5. But I run my own
servers, so I use the version *I* want - not some semi-technical number
cruncher which has no idea what peoples' needs are.
>> Now that doesn't mean I haven't rewritten code. But it's been to take
>> advantage of new features rather than because a new version required a
>> change.
>
> Like, if they had compiled php without POSIX support for example? Thats
> the kind of stuff I'm talking about. One place has posix, the other doesn't
> and you end up coding around whichever environment is available.
>
But this has nothing to do with the version of PHP - just the compile
options. You need posix support - go with a host which has it
installed. Hosts are a dime a dozen.
> As far as actual code crashing.. I've had numerous problems with PHP reference
> handling, looking in apache error logs reveal a segfault depending of
> course on your particular copy of php. (PHP5 gets reference handling "right"
> in my view, too bad it's flaky)
>
Yes, unfortunately PHP has a bug now and then. But the PHP team is real
good at fixing them when they have the right information.
>> This is not to say that sometimes changes may not be needed. The PHP
>> developers are doing their best to clean up what has been a mess of a
>> language - poorly planned and executed. It's changing, but sometimes
>> change is painful.
>
> Oh, I agree. Not a slam against the PHP developers. PHP is great for small
> things where you only need a quick mysql query or access to the include()
> functions.
>
And it's good for large projects as well. I've seen some pretty big ones.
> Heckuva lot easier than installing perl template modules.
>
>> Fortunately perl was better planned and implemented.
>
> Yea, Larry Wall.. a linguist. You can tell by the way it was designed that
> it actually /was/ designed.
>
>> Wrong on both count. I've seen both used in some quite large projects.
>> - one perl project I know about was over 250K LOC, for instance. And
>> that's perl code - not html.
>
> Spam assassin is another that is quite impressive. It's just that with perl (or
> PHP) the rules aren't as "enforced". Perl6 I hear is trying to address this.
>
Yep, it is. But neither perl nor PHP were intended to be strictly typed
languages. That's both good and bad - depending on how you look at it.
>> Yep, exception handling was added to PHP, so like with any new addition,
>> you can use it in later versions but not in earlier ones. Gee - you
>> know, the same thing is true in any product. It's hard to use something
>> before it was added.
>
> True. It's just that with the large installed base of PHP4, you'll find
> this fact is a real problem.
>
I don't find it to be a problem at all.
>> No, that's different implementations. But I've never seen this as a
>> problem in either PHP or perl. The input document should be arriving
>> pretty much all at once, anyway.
>
> As I recall (it's been awhile) doing something like, say, a PUT handler
> involved first the PHP engine accepting the request, spooling the data
> to a temp file or memory or what have you, setting up it's environment
> and THEN calling your script.
>
> Perl on the other hand, not being web centric, gives you the opportunity
> to read in from standard input directly if you want, so you could
> build an XML tree from the source document /as/ the document is being
> posted.
>
> Why not take advantage of the IO-bound time to build a data structure as data
> arives? Especially considering you were going to read it anyway?
> (caveats about DOS attacks, existing frameworks and the like assumed)
>
I've never found this to be a problem. Unless you're posting 10Mb
forms, any i/o time is minimal. And the time to process it is minimal.
But how often is PUT used, anyway? Not very often. I know I've never
used it in any language - and I don't know of many people who have. So
again - no biggie.
And while your thread is i/o bound, the server may be out doing
something else anyway.
>>> The "heavy object sharing" lends itself really well to XSLT processors
>>> or DOM objects that don't change, load once and re-use over and over.
>>> This can really be crucial with XML processing, as XSLT transformers
>>> tend to be kind of expensive to create.
>>>
>> True, but if you really have to, there are ways around it in PHP. But
>> if you really want speed in processing, I suggest you implement it in
>> C/C++. That is much faster.
>
> C/C++ will always be faster than perl. (but you could just as well say
> that if you need it fast, you should write it in assembly)
>
> One reason for doing it in perl (or PHP) is that you don't need to compile
> it for the platform.
>
Big deal. I've compiled C/C++ modules for multiple platforms before -
it's pretty simple if you write non-OS specific code.
> Being able to store a tree in memory (with perl mod_perl/FCGI) is a balance
> between cross-platform and performance. An option you don't really have
> with PHP. (and actually, don't have with perl either, unless FCGI or mod_perl
> is available)
>
How often to you need to store a tree in memory? Not often, I suspect.
> Shared heavy objects are a significant issue with XSLT transformations.
>
Yep. But again - if you want more performance, use a compiled language.
>> OTOH, perl is older and therefore more stable and mature. Newer is not
>> always better. Each language needs to be evaluated in the context it
>> will be used. A language which fits well into one project may not fit
>> well into another.
>
> In the context of XML and databases, I think perl is the winner. In the context
> of popularity contests and quick projects, PHP is the winner.
>
I disagree with you here, also. PHP does quite well with both XML and
databases.
> Popularity is significant if you need to tie in with other products, as they
> will most likely be PHP.
>
> Jamie
And it's popular because it's good.
Before you make such broad statements, I suggest you learn more about
the language. You're lack of knowledge of PHP's capabilities shows.
But I know you won't. You've made up your mind, and nobody's going to
confuse you with the facts.
As for perl - I'm not saying it's a bad language. I actually find it
the opposite. And I'll use the one more appropriate for the task at
hand. Sometimes it's perl. sometimes PHP.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|