On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:42:47PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Ritschard wrote:
> > Yes, FastCGI looks really cool.
> >
> > However, in my particular case, it's not like I am the only one who does
> > some work on the website, and I'll not be around forever either (it's
> > volunteer work, basically). Using straight PHP is technically inferior,
> > but is much more likely to actually be used by the next guy. Not to
> > mention that just spitting out a page is a lot easier than dealing with
> > caching stuff and the like.
>
> Well php can be used as a fastcgi server actually.
Yes, but - and I must admit to being a little out of my depth, or better
my research, here - I was under the impression that running them on a
'normal' server required tweaking the source code quite a bit. (Or vice
versa, of course).
> > Is there a specific language, though, that you could recommend, because
> > that's what we started out talking about?
>
> I think depending on your knowledge and needs perl, python and ruby may
> be eligible do to the job.
>
> If you plan on spitting out html directly from your code, I'd say use
> whichever you're most familiar with.
> If you need something more complex, then have a look at the maypole,
> catalyst, cherrypy and ruby on rails projects.
Damn you! I was busy enough without that lot of leads to investigate!
Oh well, one step at a time I guess.
> The key element while trying to decide on a web technology is not to
> choose the hype technology of the day but evaluate each solution.
If it were up to me, most of the website would be based on Makefiles.
There is *some* stuff that should give immediate response, like a forum,
but we could drop pretty much all dynamic content scripts in favour of
Makefiles. Or something fancy, like wml (www.thewml.org).
Not gonna happen, though... I don't think people will be too happy with
a web development framework that does not run on Windows.
Joachim
