Python v PHP: fair comparison?

**tobiah** · Nov 15 '06, 07:05 PM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

I've wrestled with this for quite a while, and I think
that I've come up with a solution. Let the heavy lifting
of the application be done with a back end python process.
I was thinking that I might use cherrypy to sit there and
wait for requests.

Then, I would have PHP make calls to this back end process
to get the content that it needs. This could be on any level
from a simple datum from the database, or as complex as
the HTML for the entire web page. I'm still trying to settle
on a protocol (SOAP, CORBA?) but I think that it should be
at the object level rather than simple posts to cherrypy.

Anyway, even though not all web hosters have a reasonable
python web framework installed, they will almost certainly
allow you to run python programs. The PHP might eventually
boil down to simple function calls that get content from
the back end. Let python do all the work:

<?php

put_attendee_ma iling_info($id) ;
list_cart_items ($id);

?>

walterbyrd wrote:

I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not. Any comments
appreciated.
>
- Python is more readable, and more general purpose
- PHP has awful backward compatibility
- PHP has a lower barrier to entry
- Most inexpensive web-hosters support PHP, but not Python
- PHP has far more pre-writen scripts available
- Newer versions of mod_python require Apache 2.0, which few hosters
have
- There is more demand for PHP developers, than Python developers
>

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

**Luis M. González** · Nov 15 '06, 08:55 PM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

walterbyrd ha escrito:

Luis M. González wrote:

the new crop of web frameworks (Django, Turbo Gears, etc...).

- Newer versions of mod_python require Apache 2.0, which few hosters
have

You can also get alder versions of mod_python. What's the problem?

>
The problem is that the system requirements for django and turbogears
are sky-high. I think Django requires Apache 2.0 (and maybe mod_python
3.x), and CherryPy (part of turbogears) requires Python 2.4. If you are
developing for a hosted environment, this can be a big problem. Few
enough hosters provide python to begin with, then add to that such
requirements as apache 2.0 - and you left with almost nothing.

You are right.
Although this is not a problem to me, because I just use bare-bones
mod_python, with no framework on top of it.
Not many people know that mod_python comes with its own built-in
handlers suitable for different programming styles, such as PSP
(similar to php) or publisher (M-V-C style).

Luis

**Bruno Desthuilliers** · Nov 15 '06, 11:05 PM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

walterbyrd a écrit :

Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
>

>>walterbyrd wrote:
>>
>>

>>>- PHP has a lower barrier to entry

>>
>>Which kind of barrier do you mean -- syntax, availability, ...?

>
>
Putting php into a web-site is as easy as throwing some php code into a
my html file, and maybe giving the file a php extension. I can get php
hosting for $10 a year easy.
>
This may not be what you want for a major developement project,

Not even for a minor one. While one can write not-trivial applications
in PHP, the kind of work this requires would greatly benefit from a real
programming language (vs a Q&D web scripting language).

but the
barrier to entry is very low.
>

Ok. This observation is very specific to web development. Python is a
general purpose programming language. And from this POV, it's IMHO much
easier to learn. And not only because you don't need Apache to use it.

**Bruno Desthuilliers** · Nov 15 '06, 11:35 PM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

walterbyrd a écrit :

Larry Bates wrote:
>
>

>>I'd be surprised if there was more demand for PHP developers
>>than Python developers.

>
>
Prepare to be surprised. From what I have seen demand for PHP
developers is off-the-scale higher than demand for Python developers.

Anyone that knows how to program and understand the http protocol is
already a PHP developer.

If you search the job boards, then -IMO- it is only fair to not include
jobs where the language is listed as an also-ran.

Then you'll find *very* few "Python developper" jobs.

For example a typical
sys-admin job will list about 24 skills, and python is often thrown
into the landry list. To my way of thinking, that is not really an ad
for a python developer.

No, it's an ad for a sys-admin job.

FWIW, I've been hired as a web developer - not as a PHP or Java or
whatever specific language programmer. Python wasn't even on the "landry
list". Then we had to hire another developer to help me on a Zope-based
project. We didn't hired a "Zope developer", nor even a "Python
developer" - we hired a young C/Perl hacker with almost no prior web
programming knowledge. Why ? Because he obviously was the best
*programmer* we could find. As a matter of fact, he managed to become a
productive Zope/Python programmer in less than two weeks.

Trying to be as fair as I can be, my research shows that demand for
developers where PHP is the primary is *far* higher than jobs where
Python is the primary skills.

There are companies that believe that there are such things as "PHP
programmer", "Java programmers", etc. And there are companies that know
the difference between a programmer and a code-monkey. The first one
will ask for 10+ years of experience on a techno that is less than 5
years old. The other will know a good coder when they meet one. Guess
where are most 'Python programmers' working ?

Of course, at best, that only shows the demand part of the equation.

Not even.

There is also the supply side to consider. From what I have seen for
salary offers for PHP developers, it may be fair to say that PHP
developers are a dime a dozen.
>

Anyone that knows how to program and understand the http protocol is
already a PHP developer.

**Bruno Desthuilliers** · Nov 15 '06, 11:45 PM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

Michael Torrie a écrit :

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:55 -0800, Luis M. González wrote:
>

>>>- Python is more readable, and more general purpose

>>
>>Yes, php is only for web.

>
>
Absolutely false.

From a purely technical POV, you're of course right. But PHP has been
hacked (nobody in it's own mind would pretend it has ever been
'designed') for web programming, and since the language by itself is
totally and definitively braindead, using it for anything else is either
masochism or lack of knowledge of better solutions. Heck, even Perl is
better for pure admin/scripting tasks.

Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP,

Yuck.

although we're
rewriting them in python.
>
Although I can't think of a single app written in php that's not web-
based (other than standalone scripts I have written), there are up-to-
date php bindings for GTK: http://gtk.php.net/

As a matter of fact, while PHP *can* be used for GUI and CLI apps,
you'll have hard time finding non-web PHP-based projects... OTOH, you'll
find Python everywhere, from sys-admin scripts to full-blown web
application servers to rich GUI clients. There must be a reason...

**Bruno Desthuilliers** · Nov 15 '06, 11:55 PM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

walterbyrd a écrit :

Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>

>>Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
>>manipulatin g my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, although we're
>>rewriting them in python.
>>

>
>
I would say that you are one of very few who use PHP for sys-admin
tasks - and even you have switched to Python. In general, it does not
seem to me that PHP has caught on as a sys-admin language.
>
However, as sys-admin scripting langanges go, I would also say that
Python is far less popular than butt-ugly Perl. Again - just based on
what I've seen.

Perl is a scripting language. By 'design'. It's meant to be a better
sh+sed+awk. Python is a general purpose programming language meant to
fill the gap between shell scripts and C programs. So Perl is obviously
a better scripting language than Python. The problem is that Q&D
sys-admin scripts tend to become full-blown apps - and then, Perl starts
to suck.

**Bruno Desthuilliers** · Nov 16 '06, 12:05 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

walterbyrd a écrit :

Luis M. González wrote:
>

>>the new crop of web frameworks (Django, Turbo Gears, etc...).
>>
>>

>>>- Newer versions of mod_python require Apache 2.0, which few hosters
>>>have

>>
>>You can also get alder versions of mod_python. What's the problem?

>
>
The problem is that the system requirements for django and turbogears
are sky-high. I think Django requires Apache 2.0 (and maybe mod_python
3.x), and CherryPy (part of turbogears) requires Python 2.4.

Yes. Neither Apache 2.0 nor mod_python 3.x nor Python 2.4 are really
bleeding edge, you know.

If you are
developing for a hosted environment, this can be a big problem. Few
enough hosters provide python to begin with, then add to that such
requirements as apache 2.0 - and you left with almost nothing.

You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
1.3.x ?

C'mon, let's be serious. I just ordered a dedibox - a small dedicated
web server - for my personal use. It's only 30 euros a month, you know...

**Carl Banks** · Nov 16 '06, 12:05 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

walterbyrd wrote:

Trying to be as fair as I can be, my research shows that demand for
developers where PHP is the primary is *far* higher than jobs where
Python is the primary skills.

Probably because PHP is so bug-prone and man-inefficient that a small
website occupies a programmer's whole time, whereas a single Python (or
Ruby, or Perl, or even Java) programmer could manage several web sites.

(If by "probable" I mean "wishful thinking", that is :)

Carl Banks

**Gabriel Genellina** · Nov 16 '06, 12:45 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

At Wednesday 15/11/2006 21:28, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>Michael Torrie a écrit :

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:55 -0800, Luis M. González wrote:

>>- Python is more readable, and more general purpose
>
>Yes, php is only for web.

Absolutely false.

>
From a purely technical POV, you're of course right. But PHP has been
>hacked (nobody in it's own mind would pretend it has ever been
>'designed') for web programming, and since the language by itself is
>totally and definitively braindead, using it for anything else is either
masochism or lack of knowledge of better solutions. Heck, even Perl is
>better for pure admin/scripting tasks.

Someone here (= at work) needed to write some PDF
reports, to be run from a bunch of ini-like
files. Without much research nor analysis nor
thinking nor approval, he said "let's use this
php library!". Surely the reports came in a few days. But:
- another dependency was added to the project
- the .ini format -which was suposed to be an
internal implementation detail- is now part of
the public interfase to the report generator
- a lot of PHP code duplicates the original class hierarchy (in delphi)
- php sucks :)

Of course there are a lot of unrelated issues
here, but I think that it's such a braindead
language which turns people into braindead programmers :)

--
Gabriel Genellina
Softlab SRL

_______________ _______________ _______________ _____
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

**Gabriel Genellina** · Nov 16 '06, 01:35 AM

RE: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

At Wednesday 15/11/2006 22:11, bruce wrote:

>interesting ongoing thread...
>
>i've seen a number of these over the years.. my language is better than your
>language!!
>
>i'm sure this question on the php list would have findings/results that are
>essentially opposite of what is being discussed here!

Sure. But after you realize that a language is just a tool to
complete a task, most of the discussions are meaningless. The
original post didn't say "python is better than php", and I think the
comparison is rather fair.

--
Gabriel Genellina
Softlab SRL

_______________ _______________ _______________ _____
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

**walterbyrd** · Nov 16 '06, 01:35 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

walterbyrd a écrit :

You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
1.3.x ?
>

Practically all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Certainly all of
the lower priced hosters.

C'mon, let's be serious. I just ordered a dedibox - a small dedicated
web server - for my personal use. It's only 30 euros a month, you know...

What if I only need 25mb of space? I can that with a PHP hoster for $10
a year. That is about 1/36th the price that you posting about.

Maybe you don't mind paying 30 euros a month, but a lot others do.

**walterbyrd** · Nov 16 '06, 01:45 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

Gabriel Genellina wrote:

- php sucks :)
I think that it's such a braindead
language which turns people into braindead programmers :)
>
>

In fairness, a lot of very serious work is done in PHP. I think yahoo
and other major web-sites use php.

I have issues with PHP as well. They will break backward compatibility
on a whim, and it is an ugly language - especially when mixed with
html. But, PHP does have it's streaths, and Python is not without it's
weaknesses.

**Cameron Laird** · Nov 16 '06, 02:45 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

In article <1163559359.010 787.185840@m73g 2000cwd.googleg roups.com>,
Luis M. González <luismgz@gmail. comwrote:

**James Cunningham** · Nov 16 '06, 03:45 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <walterbyrd@ina me.comsaid:

>
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

>walterbyrd a écrit :

>

>You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
>1.3.x ?
>>

>
Practically all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Certainly all of
the lower priced hosters.

Not true. Dreamhost, at least, uses Apache 2.

>

>C'mon, let's be serious. I just ordered a dedibox - a small dedicated
>web server - for my personal use. It's only 30 euros a month, you know...

>
What if I only need 25mb of space? I can that with a PHP hoster for $10
a year. That is about 1/36th the price that you posting about.
>
Maybe you don't mind paying 30 euros a month, but a lot others do.

Of course, you can't get $10 a year plans on Dreamhost. But with deals
you can get it down to about that low, at least for the first year. I
suppose I'm lucky enough not to miss $8 a month otherwise.

Best,
James

**Steve Holden** · Nov 16 '06, 10:25 AM

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

bruce wrote:

ummm bruno...
>
you don't 'need' apache to run php.
>
in fact, although i'm from the old hard c/c++ world.... way before web apps,
i haven't really found much for most general apps (not ui/not threaded
stuff) that php can't do..

You simply haven't been looking hard enough.

regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

Python v PHP: fair comparison?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment