In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, I reported:
.
.
.
>I appreciate your clarification. I can report back that we
>certainly move in different circles; I, for example, knew of
>people with multi-million-dollar budgets deciding on
Luis M. González wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
>
> > Luis M. González wrote:
> > > OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
> > > web development?
> > > As a generalp purpose language, it's older.
> > > But as a web development language, it's olnly when people
Luis M. González skrev:
> > > OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
> > > web development?
[...]
> The problem is (or was) for mere mortals trying to create a web site on
> shared hostings.
Yes, that was the "barrier to entry" observation, but you have to
implici
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
> that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGroups
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
> Luis M. González wrote:
> > Cameron Laird ha escrito:
> > > Perhaps it's timely to clarify the "newer" above: Guido
> > > made Python public in '89-90, and Rasmus showed PHP to
> > > others in '94-95.
> >
> > OK. But since when has python been considered a viable
Tim Chase wrote:
> I can't say I've come across any hosting places that serve up PHP
> for $10/yr either...the closest I've found is about $3.50/mo
> (which also provides Python CGI).
dollar-hosting.net offers php5 and python 2.3, for $10 a year.
the-protagonist.net has PHP 4.4 hosting for $10
Luis M. González wrote:
> Cameron Laird ha escrito:
> > Perhaps it's timely to clarify the "newer" above: Guido
> > made Python public in '89-90, and Rasmus showed PHP to
> > others in '94-95.
>
> OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
> web development?
> As a gene
John Bokma wrote:
> "Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I know, but would you consider a python cgi application a good
> > competence against php?
>
> php running as cgi you mean.
Perhaps not: he's referring to deployment on really cheap hosting
solutions which might support mod_
"Demel, Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What kind of hosting does one get for $10 a *year*? And I'm not just
> talking Python here, but any hosting at all.
I pay $12/year (see other posts, I am not going to name them again) for
hosting a phpBB board and wiki, with 100+ members and currently
> Walterbyrd wrote:
>> Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?
> I replied:
> Webfaction.com
Tkc then came back with:
>Um, I think you're off by an order of magnitude. Walterbyrd asked
> about $10/*year* and webfaction.com charges $7.50/*month*.
>Well, I suppose if one only
Tim Chase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Demel, Jeff wrote:
>> Walterbyrd wrote:
>>> Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?
>>
>> Webfaction.com
>
> Um, I think you're off by an order of magnitude. Walterbyrd
> asked about $10/*year* and webfaction.com charges $7.50/*month*.
James Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2006-11-16 12:46:05 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>>
>> James Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
>>> priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.
>>
>> Okay, where can I get Python an
Tim Chase wrote:
> I can't say I've come across any hosting places that serve up PHP
> for $10/yr either...the closest I've found is about $3.50/mo
> (which also provides Python CGI).
https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/about/faq.php#Average
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-li
On 2006-11-16 12:46:05 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> James Cunningham wrote:
>
>> Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
>> priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.
>
> Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?
Frankly, I can't find *any
Demel, Jeff wrote:
> Walterbyrd wrote:
>> Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?
>
> Webfaction.com
Um, I think you're off by an order of magnitude. Walterbyrd
asked about $10/*year* and webfaction.com charges $7.50/*month*.
Well, I suppose if one only needed one and a
Walterbyrd wrote:
>Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?
Webfaction.com
This email is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is
addressed. This email may contain information that is privileged, confidential
or otherwise protected from disclosure. Disseminat
James Cunningham wrote:
> Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
> priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.
Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
"Luis M. González" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fredrik Lundh ha escrito:
>
>> Luis M. González wrote:
>>
>> > But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started
>> > to look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started
>> > to come up (although Django has been in
Fredrik Lundh ha escrito:
> Luis M. González wrote:
>
> > But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
> > look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
> > come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
> > all this hype).
>
(replying to bruce - the post doesn't show up here)
> bruce wrote:
>> ummm bruno...
>>
>> you don't 'need' apache to run php.
Yes, true, you can also install the cli version. Which has lots of
restrictions BTW.
>> in fact, although i'm from the old hard c/c++ world way before web
>> apps,
We
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Luis M. González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Perhaps it's timely to clarify the "newer" above: Guido
>> made Python public in '89-90, and Rasmus showed PHP to
>> others in '94-95.
>
>OK.
On 2006-11-16 09:08:43 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> James Cunningham wrote:
>> On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> James Cunningham wrote:
On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bruno Desthui
James Cunningham wrote:
> On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> James Cunningham wrote:
>>> On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> walterbyrd a écrit :
> You mean there are web hosting c
Luis M. González wrote:
>
> OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
> web development?
Since the Bobo era (ca. 1997), but quite possibly before. Sure, you had
to build your own mega-framework back then, but that's what a lot of
people were doing anyway.
> As a gener
Luis M. González wrote:
> But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
> look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
> come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
> all this hype).
nah, people have built web stuff on Pyth
Cameron Laird ha escrito:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Luis M. González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
> >Then look no further. Learn python and go kick php developers asses in
> >the market place.
> >There are thous
On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> James Cunningham wrote:
>> On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
walterbyrd a écrit :
You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apa
James Cunningham wrote:
> On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>> walterbyrd a écrit :
>>> You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
>>> 1.3.x ?
>>>
>> Practically all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Ce
bruce wrote:
> ummm bruno...
>
> you don't 'need' apache to run php.
>
> in fact, although i'm from the old hard c/c++ world way before web apps,
> i haven't really found much for most general apps (not ui/not threaded
> stuff) that php can't do..
You simply haven't been looking hard enough.
On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> walterbyrd a écrit :
>
>> You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
>> 1.3.x ?
>>
>
> Practically all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Certainly all of
> the low
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Bruno Desthuilliers
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:46 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?
walterbyrd a écrit :
> Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
>
>>walterbyrd wrote:
>>
>>
&g
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Luis M. González <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
.
.
.
>Then look no further. Learn python and go kick php developers asses in
>the market place.
>There are thousands of php developers out there. Do y
Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> - php sucks :)
> I think that it's such a braindead
> language which turns people into braindead programmers :)
>
>
In fairness, a lot of very serious work is done in PHP. I think yahoo
and other major web-sites use php.
I have issues with PHP as well. They will break
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> walterbyrd a écrit :
> You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
> 1.3.x ?
>
Practically all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Certainly all of
the lower priced hosters.
> C'mon, let's be serious. I just ordered a dedibox - a small dedic
At Wednesday 15/11/2006 22:11, bruce wrote:
interesting ongoing thread...
i've seen a number of these over the years.. my language is better than your
language!!
i'm sure this question on the php list would have findings/results that are
essentially opposite of what is being discussed here!
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
Of Bruno Desthuilliers
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:35 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?
walterbyrd a écrit :
> Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely false. Most of my standalone,
At Wednesday 15/11/2006 21:28, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>Michael Torrie a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:55 -0800, Luis M. González wrote:
> >
> >>>- Python is more readable, and more general purpose
> >>
> >>Yes, php is only for web.
> >
> > Absolutely false.
>
> From a purely technical
walterbyrd wrote:
> Trying to be as fair as I can be, my research shows that demand for
> developers where PHP is the primary is *far* higher than jobs where
> Python is the primary skills.
Probably because PHP is so bug-prone and man-inefficient that a small
website occupies a programmer's whole
walterbyrd a écrit :
> Luis M. González wrote:
>
>>the new crop of web frameworks (Django, Turbo Gears, etc...).
>>
>>
>>>- Newer versions of mod_python require Apache 2.0, which few hosters
>>>have
>>
>>You can also get alder versions of mod_python. What's the problem?
>
>
> The problem is that
walterbyrd a écrit :
> Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
>>manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, although we're
>>rewriting them in python.
>>
>
>
> I would say that you are one of very few who use PHP for sys-admin
>
Michael Torrie a écrit :
> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:55 -0800, Luis M. González wrote:
>
>>>- Python is more readable, and more general purpose
>>
>>Yes, php is only for web.
>
>
> Absolutely false.
From a purely technical POV, you're of course right. But PHP has been
hacked (nobody in it's o
walterbyrd a écrit :
> Larry Bates wrote:
>
>
>>I'd be surprised if there was more demand for PHP developers
>>than Python developers.
>
>
> Prepare to be surprised. From what I have seen demand for PHP
> developers is off-the-scale higher than demand for Python developers.
Anyone that knows h
walterbyrd a écrit :
> Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
>
>>walterbyrd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>- PHP has a lower barrier to entry
>>
>>Which kind of barrier do you mean -- syntax, availability, ...?
>
>
> Putting php into a web-site is as easy as throwing some php code into a
> my html file, and maybe giving
walterbyrd ha escrito:
> Luis M. González wrote:
> > the new crop of web frameworks (Django, Turbo Gears, etc...).
> >
> > > - Newer versions of mod_python require Apache 2.0, which few hosters
> > > have
> >
> > You can also get alder versions of mod_python. What's the problem?
>
> The problem i
I've wrestled with this for quite a while, and I think
that I've come up with a solution. Let the heavy lifting
of the application be done with a back end python process.
I was thinking that I might use cherrypy to sit there and
wait for requests.
Then, I would have PHP make calls to this back en
On 2006-11-15 10:47:07 -0500, "Demel, Jeff"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...]
> That's true, but I was lucky enough to find webfaction.com for python
> hosting, including Django. Good prices and they know Python. I think
> they used to be python-hosting.com or something.
>
> -Jeff
Dirt-chea
walterbyrd wrote:
> I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not.
Who cares? Anything involving PHP is a "billion flies can't be wrong"
type of statement.
I agree completely with your observation about PHP's lower cost of
access. This is ostensibly a good thing, but it also means that ever
Michael Torrie wrote:
> Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
> manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, although we're
> rewriting them in python.
>
I would say that you are one of very few who use PHP for sys-admin
tasks - and even you have switched t
walterbyrd wrote:
>
> The problem is that the system requirements for django and turbogears
> are sky-high. I think Django requires Apache 2.0 (and maybe mod_python
> 3.x), and CherryPy (part of turbogears) requires Python 2.4. If you are
> developing for a hosted environment, this can be a big pro
Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> walterbyrd wrote:
>
> > - PHP has a lower barrier to entry
>
> Which kind of barrier do you mean -- syntax, availability, ...?
>
Putting php into a web-site is as easy as throwing some php code into a
my html file, and maybe giving the file a php extension. I can get
Larry Bates wrote:
> I'd be surprised if there was more demand for PHP developers
> than Python developers.
Prepare to be surprised. From what I have seen demand for PHP
developers is off-the-scale higher than demand for Python developers.
If you search the job boards, then -IMO- it is only fai
-Original Message-
Behalf Of walterbyrd
The problem is that the system requirements for django and turbogears
are sky-high. I think Django requires Apache 2.0 (and maybe mod_python
3.x), and CherryPy (part of turbogears) requires Python 2.4. If you are
developing for a hosted environment,
Luis M. González wrote:
> the new crop of web frameworks (Django, Turbo Gears, etc...).
>
> > - Newer versions of mod_python require Apache 2.0, which few hosters
> > have
>
> You can also get alder versions of mod_python. What's the problem?
The problem is that the system requirements for django
Olexandr Melnyk wrote:
> PHP has a lower barrier to entry
I don't think so. Python has more intuitive syntax for beginners and is one of
the best choices for the first programming language to pick up.
I second this - before discovering Python (in a GSM module's guts) - I was being
steered in t
>> Yes, php is only for web.
>
> Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
> manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, although we're
> rewriting them in python.
>
> Although I can't think of a single app written in php that's not web-
> based (other than stand
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:55 -0800, Luis M. González wrote:
>
> > - Python is more readable, and more general purpose
>
> Yes, php is only for web.
Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, although we're
rewriting th
> - Python is more readable, and more general purpose
Yes, php is only for web.
On the other hand, Python is a general purpose language and it can be
used for nearly anything you may want to do.
> - PHP has awful backward compatibility
Yes. And it's also an ugly language to work with.
> - PHP
2006/11/15, Larry Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> For the most part you wouldn't ever thing about writing data> conversion programs, GUI applications, Windows services, COM+ objects,
> Linux daemons, simple scripts, socket server/client applications,> etc. in PHP (but all can be done in Python). Web a
> I'd be surprised if there was more demand for PHP developers
> than Python developers. Google lists 51 PHP jobs and 168
> Python jobs in their internal jobs database (I just did a
> quick search).
Yes, but Google is the company that hired Guido, and that does most of
it's dev in python.
Looki
walterbyrd wrote:
> I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not. Any comments
> appreciated.
>
> - Python is more readable, and more general purpose
> - PHP has awful backward compatibility
> - PHP has a lower barrier to entry
> - Most inexpensive web-hosters support PHP, but not Python
> - P
walterbyrd wrote:
> - PHP has a lower barrier to entry
Which kind of barrier do you mean -- syntax, availability, ...?
Also from what I know of PHP, language and API seem more unstable
and inhomogenous. CMIIW.
Regards,
Björn
--
BOFH excuse #219:
Recursivity. Call back if it happens again.
I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not. Any comments
appreciated.
- Python is more readable, and more general purpose
- PHP has awful backward compatibility
- PHP has a lower barrier to entry
- Most inexpensive web-hosters support PHP, but not Python
- PHP has far more pre-writen scripts
62 matches
Mail list logo
