* David Dickson <davidd.lists@xxxxxxxx>: > I was told that PEAR has too much overhead to be considered for a large > scale site. Does any one feel the same? Is this an outrageous comment? I > would like to hear comments from people who are using PEAR, or people > who have considered PEAR but decided not to use it and your reasons. I would ask for specifics -- what is perceived as overhead? what kind of performance degradation is witnessed? does the loss in performance outweigh the benefits to development (i.e., does it cost more to pay a programmer than to purchase hardware/bandwidth?)? Benchmark some code yourself, as well. Write a sample application using PEAR -- and then an equivalent version without. Compare the amount of time it took to develop each. Then benchmark each piece of code on the webserver. For what it's worth, we've decided that the benefits of PEAR -- standard resources, standard error handling, database agnosticism, and more -- coupled with a development model that heavily utilizes inheritance (so we don't have to reimplement code all over the place, which makes bugfixes nightmarish) -- far outweigh any performance issues. And that's without doing benchmarking. Our time is simply too valuable. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney | mailto:matthew@xxxxxxxxxx Webmaster and IT Specialist | http://www.garden.org National Gardening Association | http://www.kidsgardening.com 802-863-5251 x156 | http://nationalgardenmonth.org -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
