On 1 Dec 2003, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> >>>>> "scott" == scott marlowe <scott.marlowe@ihs.com> writes:
>
> scott> This is simply not true. PHP comes in both a web ready
> scott> embedded version, as well as a CLI version, and is quite
> scott> capable, even of handling things like streams and such, and can
> scott> even be used to write a daemon listening on a port quite
> scott> easily.
>
> But PHP is where Perl was five years ago, and continually plays
> catchup. If you want real work done, use the right tool. PHP is fine
> for nifty web pages for smallish sites, but Perl takes over when the
> real heavy lifting is needed.
Bold assertion, with little to back it up. Name something Perl is so much
better at than PHP, and you'll likely find that PHP now does it and does
it well.
We quit programming in Perl a couple years ago in my shop, as it was far
easier to configure PHP on a server and have it do what we needed.
> scott> Just because it (probably) hasn't been used to write such a
> scott> system doesn't mean you couldn't do it in PHP.
>
> You could do it in assembler too. But why?
Ignoring your assembler point, as it's a poor comparison, and we both know
it...
Why do it in PHP: Because it's a good choice for such things, having
Perl's easy string handling with C's simple file interface functions.
Because there's always somewhere else to go that no one else has thought
of, and a different way of doing it. Because it's a good language that
has a lot of people who say nebulous bad things about it but have pitiful
little real experience with it? I'm not sure.
> To keep from wasting precious human cycles, you need something with
> the code density and flexibility of Perl or better. Python, Ruby,
> that league. Not C, not Java, not PHP.
Again, show me an area where PHP is actually deficient here. Something
Perl or Ruby does better that would pertain to a mailing list. Don't just
wave your hands around, give us a concrete example of its short comings.
