From: Tommy Pham on 24 Mar 2010 04:42
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Ashley Sheridan
> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 10:00 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote:
>> jeez dude, you're assuming that all software problems are best solved
>> by a sql solution.
>> imo, they're NOT. example? any realtime system with real work to do.
>> please stop pretending you know the proper design of all software that
>> is made or yet has to be made.
>> both a ya.
>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Lester Caine <lester(a)lsces.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Rene Veerman wrote:
>> >> and btw, complexity of design can go up considerably when you have to
>> >> deal with more than 1 php and 1 mysql server, because the language
>> >> forces inefficient constructs _and_ is "stuck on 1 server"....
>> > Switch to a real database?
>> > MySQL still needs to grow up as well :)
>> > --
>> > Lester Caine - G8HFL
>> > -----------------------------
>> > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
>> > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
>> > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
>> > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
>> > Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>> > --
>> > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
>> > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> But aren't you doing exactly that by saying that PHP needs threading and
> that threading is the only way to achieve certain goals. I've watched
> this thread go on quite a bit, and haven't seen a really good argument
> that proves PHP needs threading when it can't be solved without it. PHP
> is PHP. If it behaved exactly the same as all the other languages, what
> would make it distinct against those others. One of it's main strenghts
> is its simplicity I feel. If you added threading to the bag of tricks it
> already has, you're getting into areas that make it more difficult to
> pick up for beginners (and that's not to mention the technical elements
> involved in actually adding threading to PHP) Currently the only other
> 'easy' language I know for beginners is ColdFusion, and that's just
> horrible. You wouldn't want to be responsible for sending the newbies
> down that path would you?! :p
That's why I gave an analogy of AJAX earlier. You use AJAX yourself.
Do you use it for every project? Would you recommend AJAX to newbies?
When you do use AJAX, there is a slight difference in your app design
then when you don't use AJAX. That's the way I see threads. It's not
for every body nor for every project. But it would be great if it's
there when the need/requirement arises. And yes, coldfusion should be
phased out long ago...
From: Rene Veerman on 24 Mar 2010 04:44
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Per Jessen <per(a)computer.org> wrote:
> By advocating that thread support does not belong in PHP, I am in no way
> determining what you (or anyone else) may or may not do. You are a
> free individual and free to choose the programming language and
> paradigm that is best suited to your purposes.
right! that's saying "you're free to leave behind the tool you've
chosen for another one, because really, that tool should not start to
support things that i dont happen to have a use for."
From: Per Jessen on 24 Mar 2010 04:47
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.
> and you're still trying to impose a toolset on me.=20
I didn't think I was - you're the one who seem to be fixed on PHP as th=
only solution, and advocating that it be enhanced to suit your
Per Jessen, Z=C3=BCrich (9.2=C2=B0C)
From: Rene Veerman on 24 Mar 2010 04:58
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Per Jessen <per(a)computer.org> 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.
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.
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.
>> 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
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.
From: Per Jessen on 24 Mar 2010 04:59
Tommy Pham wrote:
> When you do use AJAX, there is a slight difference in your app design=
> then when you don't use AJAX. That's the way I see threads.=20
A threaded design makes for a lot more than a slight difference IMHO.=20=
Once you've said "threading", the next words in rapid succession are:
mutexes, semaphores, locking, spin-locks, signals, race conditions,
atomic updates, cache coherency, asynchronous IO etcetera. They are
all perfectly well-known but complex concepts, and I would always
choose C and/or assembler to work with those.=20
Per Jessen, Z=C3=BCrich (9.5=C2=B0C)