> On Mar 23, 2020, at 14:55, Mike Schinkel <m...@newclarity.net> wrote: > >> We've already made huge strides in one big >> advantage, which is speed - if they were starting today, I wonder if the >> Phalcon team would bother inventing Zephir, or if they'd just design the >> framework with OpCache pre-loading in mind. > > It is notable you mention Zephir but make no mention to WASM, which is what I > pointed to as the most promising extension mechanism I currently see on the > horizon. > > (BTW, I am really happy they created Zephir, but only because it is helpful > for a project I am working on in ways that would probably not be applicable > to discuss on the list.) > > But why no reference to WASM? WASM would let us write extensions in many > languages. Even better, we could write a PHP-to-WASM compiler for a > WASM-specific dialect of PHP. >
The reference to Zephir here is about speed of the engine. If the folks who created Phalcon were to create it today (on PHP 7), would they have decided to create it as an extension and bother creating Zephir? I can’t speak for anyone from that project, but this was what I was driving at by my “advocate for implementing in userland” comment. The engine is fast. Implementing in C does not provide as significant a performance boost (vs. implementing in userland) as it used to (YMMV depending on the workloads you’re processing). Cheers, Ben
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
