On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Rene Veerman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:31 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> Rene Veerman wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Robert Cummings <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> 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. > > I'm certianly not right all the time. once I thought I was but I was 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..... > > I think you'll find when you get even close to the size of facebook, > everything you think you know now about how it all stays running will be > thrown out the window. But then, I'm not a fan of early optimization of this > magnitude. A good design is usually flexible enough to allow redesign > without recoding everything. Baby steps to the moon IMHO. > yea, well, if i'm going to keep using php i need a path towards scalability, for this particular problem. i'd like to code the kinds of applications with big dataflows. call me a golddigger all you want, it's what i am ;) just not in the sexual sense hehe.. >Your tools are up to date. Threading is in the future if at all... it's certainly not in the present. True, lets _keep_ 'm up-to-date, please. And you'd enable other uses of PHP besides helping this real-time-web-scalability problem. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
