On May 14, 12:05 am, Dave Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to support this statement: PHP runs an order of magnitude slower than > > python. Yet a great deal (if not the majority) of dynamic sites out there > > run under PHP. All of these are unhappy customers? > > The websites owners might not be unhappy, but lots of customers > complain about slow websites, so if the market is competitive then > eventually the PHP fad will die out. > > For example, Slashdot recently interviewed a successful website in a > competitive market -- online newspapers -- and found that to enhance > customer happiness the New York Times uses hand-coded HTML. > > "He was asked how the Web site looks so consistently nice and polished > no matter which browser or resolution is used to access it. His answer > begins: 'It's our preference to use a text editor, like HomeSite, > TextPad or TextMate, to "hand code" everything, rather than to use a > wysiwyg (what you see is what you get) HTML and CSS authoring program, > like Dreamweaver. We just find it yields better and faster > results.'"http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/30/009245&from=rss
Hello, you're showing a sign of negligence (and ignorance). HTML is a data descriptor language, PHP is a process descriptor (scripting) language. They are not interchangeable, and most PHP code produces HTML in the end. Them saying that they handcode everything means they're now using a handcoded HTML with PHP instead of WYSIWYG HTML with PHP they used previously. PHP is still used down there. And if a big, well-known website claimed that they handcode is a big news to you, you're just ignorant enough to ignore the fact that most if not ALL large website is handcoded since they used scripting (mainly as PHP and Javascript) extensively so that WYSIWYG is not the easiest way to do it. WYSIWYG is good enugh for static website which most mediocre website needs, not for dynamic site which is the need for any huge website. And anything much huger would use a collaboration between PHP, HTML, Javascript, and a real programming language (like C-family, Python, Java, Basic). What do you reckon the search engine behind Google is written in? PHP? > "Faster" wins in a competitive market, so if a programming language > can't deliver "faster", it is a fad that will die out. Faster in what sense? As I can see it, to write something that requires 5 keystrokes in Python (a = b) requires 9 keystrokes in FT (Set a to b) that's almost double. And haven't I mentioned FT's dot . is just like C's semicolon ;? Would it need a professor to mention that any program code of reasonable length would need to be indented? Which FT seems to discourage? And it seems that FT is ignorant enough to ignore the rule it have created itself before. If it doesn't cojoin english words such as Go To, why it cojoins Writeline, squareroot? And if I want to create a function name that consist of more than one word, I would have to cojoin the words, what's the point in that? And your 8 by 8 cross compiler doesn't impress me at all, they're all based on x86/IA-32 architecture which is quite similar, no PowerPC, SPARC, ARM, no other CISC or RISC architecture. And your compiler is a single language compiler instead of three dimensional compiler that GCC is (cross platform, cross target platform, cross language). (snip) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
