OpenEuphoria

Re[4]: Euphoria CGI Success

• Posted by akusaya at gmx.net Feb 14, 2006
• 524 views

R> If EDB is easily corrupted, why have I not had any confirmed reports of
R> corruption? I know that a lot of people are using it. I have databases
R> that are years old and are updated every day, no problem. 
R> database.e has been very stable since it was created a few years ago. 
R> I don't know of any bugs that would cause corruption. The only 
R> temporary "corruption" that has been reported has been due to things like
R> copying a database from Windows to Linux in "text" mode.

Have you ever tried to open an EDB file with 50 process
(no threads on Eu, yet!) simultaneously and write it?

R> Have you benchmarked PHP against Euphoria?
R> It's 140x slower than the Euphoria interpreter on sieve.
R> 517x slower than the Euphoria to C translator.

Yes I know Eu is very fast compared to PHP. However that is not what
we need for websites. Moreover, who wants to use PHP for doing sieve?
If sieve were really needed, one could use C and call the sieve
function from Eu or PHP and that will be faster.

One more thing is, how if 100 users request the same page at one time
period (which is typical for a website). Wouldn't there be 100 exu
processes running simultaneously? How about the startup time?

OK, I tested the exu runtime from my webhosting server.

date>tgl; for((i=0;i<100;i++)); do  echo a|./ex examliat.ex ; done; date>>tgl
cat tgl

output:
Tue Feb 14 14:28:25 GMT 2006
Tue Feb 14 14:28:29 GMT 2006

It needs 4 seconds to run. It is Eu 2.4. I havent tried Eu 2.5. Hope
it is not too bad.

Couldn't you just say that Eu is not really suited for serving
webpages? (no offense)