Will PHP ever "grow up" and have threading?
in [General]
|
From: Rene Veerman on 24 Mar 2010 15:25 On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)interjinn.com> wrote: > Rene Veerman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Per Jessen <per(a)computer.org> wrote: >>> >>> Rene Veerman wrote: >>> >>>> again: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Rene, it seems to me that you and I are advocating two opposite >>> positions on the topic of threading in PHP, so aren't we both trying to >>> determine the contents of each others toolset? >>> >> >> Per: that's EXACTLY the point. >> You are determining it for me, i'm not for you. >> Simply because you dont have to use the language features you atm >> think you don't need in php. > > Actually, no. You are determine aspects of the toolset as it stands. To add > threading is not a benign additon because we can choose to use it or not. If > added it would affect the future irrevocably since undoubtedly we would need > to maintain someone's code that contains threads because they didn't > understand the shared nothing nature of PHP. yes you may encounter bad code. it happens now too. but most realtime programmers know not to use threads unless necessary.
From: Robert Cummings on 24 Mar 2010 15:31 Rene Veerman wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)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. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP
From: Rene Veerman on 24 Mar 2010 15:33 On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)interjinn.com> wrote: > Rene Veerman wrote: >> >> unless the actual php development team would like to weigh in on this >> matter of course. > > Wrong list. Subscribe to internals. > >> yes, i do consider it that important. > >> these nay-sayers usually also lobby the dev-team to such extent that >> these features would actually not make it into php. > > It's a debate. The dev team consider proposals and weigh in on the merits. I > was a proponent for goto support during the development of PHP 5. We now > have it. If you arguments are valid and there's no technical issue > preventing it, and there's someone with time and skill to created the > functionality, then it will happen. If not then it won't. I've seen many > things added to PHP and I've watched and participated in the threads on > internals that have lead to many new features. This is open source, opinions > matter, but personal attacks and poor argument do not really make the cut. > hahaha... you dismiss what i believe to be valid explanations without any counter-argument besides "more sql hardware!", not just by me but by all advocates of threading&shared memory in php. for some reason, which is still not clear to me, you nay-sayers refuse to let a PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE (not a "hammer", not a "fishing boat") evolve to stay useful, relevant even, in a changing market. and you're blatantly telling me to use a different kind of "hammer", one that would force me to rewrite large sections of my existing code-base, and one that i have told you i would find for many other _valid_ reasons not optimal. basically, you're determining my choice of options without me ever having forced you to do something a certain way.. so you'll have to excuse my strong language. it's just letting you know that you shouldn't butt into other peoples business when it doesn't really affect you.
From: Rene Veerman on 24 Mar 2010 15:33 On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)interjinn.com> wrote: > > > Rene Veerman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)interjinn.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Rene Veerman wrote: >>>> >>>> talk to me about this some other time. >>>> >>>> atm i'm having an argument with per and his kind about their very very >>>> annoying behaviour of determining my toolset for me. >>>> keeping a thread on topic is also ettiquette from the mailinglist rules >>>> eh? >>>> >>>> you might wanna consider just how much it pisses me off to have >>>> strangers >>>> determining my toolset and/or lifestyle for me. >>>> that's why i got rude. no other reason. >>> >>> Umm... you or your boss/client chose PHP. That means one of those two >>> determined your toolset. Maybe next time you might want to pony up for a >>> requirements analysis to determine if the toolset is right for the job. >>> >> >> you've never heard of feature-creep, changing environments and >> requirements, etc? > > Not usually, at the level of the language choice, is an about turn done > after a requirements analysis has been completed. Feature creep is a > management issue. > it's a managment issue only because it's a fact of life.
From: Rene Veerman on 24 Mar 2010 15:35
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)interjinn.com> wrote: > > > Rene Veerman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Robert Cummings <robert(a)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. 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..... |