Re: Question About Web Site Speed
On 7/14/05, Robert Craig <guest at rapideuphoria.com> wrote:
> cklester wrote:
> > Robert Craig wrote:
> > >
> > > php is a typical interpreter that's much slower than Euphoria.
> > > It couldn't handle the EUforum search for example, without
> > > people screaming.
> >
> > With an index, it would probably work fine. Or see here:
>
> I do a bit of indexing. For example if you specify the "posted by"
> field, I can give you your results almost instantly.
>
> However, there are no limits on the strings you can search for and
> quite often it's necessary to actually read every line of
> all 70,000 messages (over 100MB). I suspect no one
> would try that with pure PHP.
*snerk*
Of course not, they'd use any of the many database managers that are
easily accessible through php. mysql, postgresql, mssql, and more...
My opinion, such as it is, is that processing speed of the cgi scripts
is relatively unimportant for serving up most web pages. All of the
complex data sifting and logic can and should be passed off to
database applications that are built for this sort of thing. There are
a few exceptions to this rule - scripts that might have to dynamically
calculate some complex mathematical formulae that can't be implemented
in mysql - ... but 99.9% of tasks will be fine.
So, the important thing becomes ease of development, and ease of security.=
Euphoria and PHP are both quite flexible languages.. no points lost by
either side there.
PHP has a raft of available functions as part of its standard
libraries to do just about anything, with standardised conventions,
and lots of documentation.
Euphoria has ... well ...=20
So I too would say php is better for serving web pages... unless you
really, REALLY like implementing everything from scratch.
--
MrTrick
----------
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
