and if threading and shared memory aren't implemented, then hey, the
php dev team can build something else in that these naysayers DO need


On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Rene Veerman <> wrote:
> unless the actual php development team would like to weigh in on this
> matter of course.
> yes, i do consider it that important.
> these nay-sayers usually also lobby the dev-team to such extent that
> these features would actually not make it into php.
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Rene Veerman <> wrote:
>> php is not a hammer, its a programming language.
>> one that i feel needs to stay ahead of the computing trend if it is to
>> be considered a language for large scale applications.
>> but you nay-sayers here have convinced me; i'll be shopping for
>> another language with which to serve my applications and the weboutput
>> they produce..
>> thanks for opening my eyes and telling to abandon ship in time.
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Stuart Dallas <> wrote:
>>> Heh, you guys are funny!
>>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 08:58, Rene Veerman wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Per Jessen <> wrote:
>>>>> Rene Veerman wrote:
>>>>>> popular : facebook youtube etc
>>>>> Rene, I must be missing something here.  That sort of size implies
>>>>> millions in advertising revenue, so why are we discussing how much
>>>>> performance we can squeeze out of a single box?  I mean, I'm all for
>>>>> efficient use of system resources, but if I have a semi-scalable
>>>>> application, it's a lot easier just getting another box than trying to
>>>>> change the implementation language.  OTOH, if my design is not
>>>>> scalable, it's probably also easier to redo it than trying to change
>>>>> the implementation language.
>>>> again:
>>>> a) you're determining the contents of my toolset, without it affecting
>>>> you at all. the way you want it php will degrade into a toy language.
>>> And how exactly are you defining a toy language? If you want features like 
>>> threading, why not switch to a language that already supports it?
>>>> b) i will aim for all possible decreases in development time and
>>>> operating costs during, not only in the grow phase but also in hard
>>>> economic times. any business person knows why.
>>> Yup, this is very good practice, but deciding that one particular tool is 
>>> the only option is a fatal business decision. Use the right tool for the 
>>> job!
>>> What you're trying to do here is akin to taking a hammer and whittling a 
>>> screwdriver in to the handle. It's ridiculously inefficient, and imo, 
>>> pretty stupid.
>>>>>> and you're still trying to impose a toolset on me.
>>>>> I didn't think I was - you're the one who seem to be fixed on PHP as the
>>>>> only solution, and advocating that it be enhanced to suit your
>>>>> purposes.
>>>> no, php is just my toolset of choice, and i think it should grow with
>>>> the times and support threading and shared memory.
>>>> maybe even a few cool features to enable use-as-a-cloud.
>>> PHP is a hammer, and a bloody good one at that, but you seem to want it to 
>>> be a tool shed. Accept that it's a hammer, go visit a DIY store, find the 
>>> right tool for the job and get on with your life!
>>> The fact is that even if we all agree that PHP needs threading, and one or 
>>> more people start working on putting it into the core, it will likely be 
>>> many months before you see any sight of a working version, and even longer 
>>> before you see a stable release.
>>> -Stuart
>>> --

PHP General Mailing List (
To unsubscribe, visit:

Reply via email to