On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Ashley Sheridan <ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 21:50 +0200, Rene Veerman wrote: > > 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. > > > > Why don't you set up a vote to see how many developers actually *want* > threading. That would be a good indication of whether or not it is actually > worth the PHP development team spending a lot of time on it at the loss of > other features which people want more. > we'd probably lose that vote because so many of you other php programmers refuse to see that we do have good uses for it, and you don't. yet. but ultimately it's a matter of the php dev's team time and effort, so when this thread has run it's course i may go to the internals list and raise it -diplomatically- there.
