On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 22:05 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ashley Sheridan > <a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk>wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 21:50 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Robert Cummings <rob...@interjinn.com> > > wrote: > > > Rene Veerman wrote: > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Robert Cummings <rob...@interjinn.com> > > >> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Rene Veerman wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Robert Cummings <rob...@interjinn.com> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Rene Veerman wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> php is not a hammer, its a programming language. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> It's hard to discuss anything with someone who doesn't comprehend a > > >>>>> metaphor. > > >>>> > > >>>> haha. "comprehend". you mean "accept". > > >>>> that metaphor is stretched to breaking point as far as i'm concerned. > > >>>> > > >>>>>> one that i feel needs to stay ahead of the computing trend if it is > > >>>>>> to > > >>>>>> be considered a language for large scale applications. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Personification of PHP doesn't make your argument any more salient. > > >>>>> PHP > > >>>>> isn't trying to stay ahead of anything. People are using it to solve > > >>>>> problems, not to meet some phantom ideal of a "computing trend" > > >>>>> threshold. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> 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. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Obviously we didn't open your eyes. > > >>>>> > > >>>> Well excuse me for not dumping 50-100k lines of my own cms code > > >>>> instantly now that i realize that in order to scale it, i could really > > >>>> use features like threading and shared memory. > > >>> > > >>> Actually, you are th eone suggesting dumping your code since you said > > >>> you > > >>> were jumping ship. Many of us suggested that your problems can almost > > >>> certainly be mitigated without threading. > > >>> > > >> > > >> "almost certainly". at least you're acknowledging that you might be > > >> wrong. > > > > > > I'm certianly not right all the time. once I thought I was but I was > > > wrong. > > > > > >> take this example, sorry for the crosspost; > > >> > > >> my main concern atm is my own cms (50-100k lines of my own); it's > > >> graphics-heavy, does fairly complicated db based logic, and if it ever > > >> is to be used for a site like facebook, it'll get large dataflows that > > >> have to be distributed over the servers used to generate html and > > >> accessoiries for end-users. > > >> i've built a layer into it that caches the output of oft-used pages > > >> (like articles and their comments). > > >> but adding many comments / minute to an article would result in quite > > >> a bit of overhead, to update the html for that page and distribute it > > >> (fast enough) to the relevant servers. > > >> > > >> i'm worried about php's single-threaded nature; each request has to > > >> fetch html updated in the last few seconds, or generate it from a list > > >> of comments. that's also a big query from a big table for every > > >> end-user.. :( > > >> i'd rather keep them comments for an article in shared memory..... > > > > > > I think you'll find when you get even close to the size of facebook, > > > everything you think you know now about how it all stays running will be > > > thrown out the window. But then, I'm not a fan of early optimization of > > > this > > > magnitude. A good design is usually flexible enough to allow redesign > > > without recoding everything. Baby steps to the moon IMHO. > > > > > yea, well, if i'm going to keep using php i need a path towards > > scalability, for this particular problem. > > > > i'd like to code the kinds of applications with big dataflows. > > call me a golddigger all you want, it's what i am ;) > > just not in the sexual sense hehe.. > > > > >Your tools are up to date. Threading is in the future if at all... it's > > >certainly not in the present. > > > > True, lets _keep_ 'm up-to-date, please. > > > > And you'd enable other uses of PHP besides helping this > > real-time-web-scalability problem. > > > > > > > > Why don't you set up a vote to see how many developers actually *want* > > threading. That would be a good indication of whether or not it is actually > > worth the PHP development team spending a lot of time on it at the loss of > > other features which people want more. > > > > we'd probably lose that vote because so many of you other php programmers > refuse to see that we do have good uses for it, and you don't. yet. > > but ultimately it's a matter of the php dev's team time and effort, so when > this thread has run it's course i may go to the internals list and raise it > -diplomatically- there.
So you're basically saying that you'd discount anyone who opposes you purely because you think you know best? Nice attitude. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
