OpenEuphoria

Re: Question About Web Site Speed

• Posted by Jason Gade <jaygade at yahoo.com> Jul 15, 2005
• 499 views

Robert Craig wrote:
> 
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
> > So I too would say php is better for serving web pages... 
> 
>  Shootout - sieve
>  Interpreters, sorted by seconds taken:
>  (EtoC added for comparison)
>  ---------------------------------------
>  Euphoria  0.13  - EtoC Translator / Watcom
>  Euphoria  0.47  - Interpreted with exw.exe
>  pliant    0.68
>  gforth    0.75
>  parrot    2.98
>  ocamlb    3.21
>  poplisp   3.34
>  eu in eu  7.15  - PD source Euphoria translated/compiled to eu.exe
>  erlang    7.16
>  lua       8.70
>  pike     10.36
>  python   14.33
>  icon     15.12
>  perl     16.36
>  elastic  16.88
>  guile    18.64
>  cygperl  19.22
>  ruby     27.59
>  mawk     28.00
>  vbscript 32.02
>  php      67.32   <---- !!!
>  jscript  77.43
>  tcl      83.10
>  gawk    158.49
>  rexx    166.85
> 
> So, on sieve at least, Euphoria (interpreted) is 
> 67.32/.47 = 143x faster than php
> 
> while E2C Euphoria is: 
> 67.32/.13 = 517x faster.
> 
> If you don't mind giving up that much speed,
> by all means consider using php for CGI.
> 
> Regards,
>    Rob Craig
>    Rapid Deployment Software
>    <a href="http://www.RapidEuphoria.com">http://www.RapidEuphoria.com</a>
> 

In all fairness, Patrick's point was that there aren't a lot of CGIs doing
sieves, now are there?  He was trying to say that doing large indexing and
lookups, like you do on the EUforum search, is generally done with an external
database and therefore PHP speed vs. Euphoria speed isn't as important.  So then
it all boils down to programmer time to either find and use certain functions in
libraries or write them from scratch.

At least I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth. That is what I understood
from his post.

=====================================
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

j.