On 30.03.2006, at 23:31 Uhr, PFC wrote:
(why do you think I don't like Java ?)
Because you haven't used a good framework/toolkit yet? Come on, the
language doesn't really matter these days, it's all about frameworks,
toolkits, libraries, interfaces and so on.
But, nevertheless, t
jython is a full rewrite of python in java and interface naturally with
java classes, therefore hibernate ... and is just as easy as python.
Steinar H. Gunderson a écrit :
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:31:25PM +0200, PFC wrote:
So, one wonders why some use 70's languages like Java i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Marlowe) writes:
> And that, nowadays, is generally the state of web development. It's
> not the language you're using to write it in, it's how efficiently
> you're using your database.
Which properly puts my comments in their place :-).
More importantly, that seems like
On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 11:31:25PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> So, one wonders why some use 70's languages like Java instead of
> Lisp or Python, which are slower, but a lot more powerful and faster
> to
> develop in...
> (and don't have hibernate, which is a big bonus)
> (why
And yes, it does become natural to ask "why not write CGIs in ASM?"
;-)
Personally, I'd code it in brainfuck, for aesthetic reasons.
And that, nowadays, is generally the state of web development. It's not
the language you're using to write it in, it's how efficiently you're
using yo
On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 11:22, Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Craig A. James") writes:
>
> > Gorshkov wrote:
> >> /flame on
> >> if you were *that* worried about performance, you wouldn't be using
> >> PHP or *any* interperted language
> >> /flame off
> >> sorry - couldn't resist it :-)
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Craig A. James") writes:
> Gorshkov wrote:
>> /flame on
>> if you were *that* worried about performance, you wouldn't be using
>> PHP or *any* interperted language
>> /flame off
>> sorry - couldn't resist it :-)
>
> I hope this was just a joke. You should be sure to clarify -
Hi, Craig,
Craig A. James wrote:
> I hope this was just a joke. You should be sure to clarify - there
> might be some newbie out there who thinks you are seriously suggesting
> coding major web sites in some old-fashioned compiled language.
No, but perhaps with a CMS that pregenerates static co
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 22:01, Craig A. James wrote:
> This is off-topic for this group so I'll just give a brief reply; I'm happy
> to carry on more just between the two of us...
>
> Gorshkov wrote:
> > That being said . what *is* the difference between coding a website -
> > major or other
This is off-topic for this group so I'll just give a brief reply; I'm happy to
carry on more just between the two of us...
Gorshkov wrote:
That being said . what *is* the difference between coding a website -
major or otherwise - in an "old-fashioned" compiled language and a
non-compiled l
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 21:23, Craig A. James wrote:
> Gorshkov wrote:
> > /flame on
> > if you were *that* worried about performance, you wouldn't be using PHP
> > or *any* interperted language
> > /flame off
> >
> > sorry - couldn't resist it :-)
>
> I hope this was just a joke. You should be
Gorshkov wrote:
/flame on
if you were *that* worried about performance, you wouldn't be using PHP or
*any* interperted language
/flame off
sorry - couldn't resist it :-)
I hope this was just a joke. You should be sure to clarify - there might be
some newbie out there who thinks you are ser
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 14:50, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 13:42, PFC wrote:
> > > This is as much about the code in front of the database as the database
> > > itself. You'll want to use an architecture that supports pooled
> > > connections (java, php under lighttpd, etc...) an
On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Marcos wrote:
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in
the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds,
the
application will be looking for new messages.
We bought software for this purpose (phplive). It is b
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Generally you'll find the PostgreSQL gotchas are of the sort that make
you go "oh, that's interesting" and the MySQL gotchas are the kind
that
make you go "Dear god, you must be kidding me!"
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
I
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:57 PM, Madison Kelly wrote:
From what I understand, PostgreSQL is designed with stability and
reliability as key tenants. MySQL favors performance and ease of
use. An
From my point of view, mysql favors single-user performance over all
else. Get into multiple upda
On 3/28/06, Jim C. Nasby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heh, too quick on the send button...
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:42:51PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> Actually, it's entirely possible to do stuff like web counters, you just
> want to do it differently in PostgreSQL. Simply insert into a table
> eve
Heh, too quick on the send button...
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:42:51PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> I'll only speak about MyISAM. MySQL == MyISAM. InnoDB is useless :
> if you want transactions, use postgres.
> If you say to yourself "oh yeah, but it would be cool to use a
> MyI
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 09:42:51PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> However, throw in some maintenance operation which involves a long
> query with writes (like a big joined UPDATE) and all access to your
> website is blocked while the query lasts.
> This is worsened by the fact that MySQL
What really makes innodb useless to me is that there's no real support
for proper operation by MySQL itself. If you could force MySQL to only
use innodb tables, and to NEVER do the wrong things syntactically, it
would be ok. But there are thousands of foot-guns in the MySQL
That's wh
So, what exactly are you planning on doing?
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds, the
application will be looking for new messages.
I believe that it will make many accesses. The write in dis
Marcos wrote:
So, what exactly are you planning on doing?
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds, the
application will be looking for new messages.
I believe that it will make many accesse
This is as much about the code in front of the database as the database
itself. You'll want to use an architecture that supports pooled
connections (java, php under lighttpd, etc...) and you'll want to look
Well, anybody who uses PHP and cares about performance is already using
lighttpd,
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 13:42, PFC wrote:
> > This is as much about the code in front of the database as the database
> > itself. You'll want to use an architecture that supports pooled
> > connections (java, php under lighttpd, etc...) and you'll want to look
>
> Well, anybody who uses PHP a
> So, what exactly are you planning on doing?
The application will be a chat for web, the chats will be stored in the
server. In a determined interval of time... more or less 2 seconds, the
application will be looking for new messages.
I believe that it will make many accesses. The write in disc
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 09:31, Marcos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Postgresql's user and I think that it's very very good and
> robust.
>
> In my work we're confuse between where database is the best choose:
> Postgresql or Mysql. The Mysql have the reputation that is very fast
> working in the web but
Marcos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a Postgresql's user and I think that it's very very good and
> robust.
>
> In my work we're confuse between where database is the best choose:
> Postgresql or Mysql. The Mysql have the reputation that is very fast
> working in the web but in our application we are est
Hi,
I'm a Postgresql's user and I think that it's very very good and
robust.
In my work we're confuse between where database is the best choose:
Postgresql or Mysql. The Mysql have the reputation that is very fast
working in the web but in our application we are estimating many access
simultaneo
28 matches
Mail list logo
