Rene Veerman wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Per Jessen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
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.
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
purposes.
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.
Why are you imposing a toolset on the developers of PHP? Are you even
subscribed to internals? Have you even thought of creating a patch? It's
one thing to debate the merits of a tool, it's another to insist that it
be added because you think php needs to "grow up".
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
