Python v PHP: fair comparison?

[Steve Holden]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

James Cunningham wrote:

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.

So you thin a single counter-example disproves an assertion that begins
with "practicall y all"?

>>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.
>

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

[James Cunningham]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.comsaid:

James Cunningham wrote:

>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.

>
So you thin a single counter-example disproves an assertion that begins
with "practicall y all"?

Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.

"Certainly all".

"Certainly" "all".

Best,
James

[Luis M. González]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?


Cameron Laird ha escrito:

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

Then look no further. Learn python and go kick php developers asses in
the market place.
There are thousands of php developers out there. Do you want to be just
one more?
I'd rather learn something newer, and much more powerful.

.
[more Python
cheerleading]
.
.
Perhaps it's timely to clarify the "newer" above: Guido
made Python public in '89-90, and Rasmus showed PHP to
others in '94-95.

OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
web development?
As a generalp purpose language, it's older.
But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
all this hype).
I remember well, just a few months ago, there were many alternatives
(remember "subway"?).

[Fredrik Lundh]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

Luis M. González wrote:

But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
all this hype).

nah, people have built web stuff on Python for as long as we've had a web.

</F>

[Paul Boddie]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

Luis M. González wrote:

>
OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
web development?

Since the Bobo era (ca. 1997), but quite possibly before. Sure, you had
to build your own mega-framework back then, but that's what a lot of
people were doing anyway.

As a generalp purpose language, it's older.
But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
all this hype).

I remember maintaining a long list of Web frameworks a few *years* ago.
It's true that most of them didn't resemble the slick marketed package
that you see with something like TurboGears, but you might be surprised
how much you got with Webware back in 2001:

http://www.webwareforpython.org/Docs/RelNotes-0.5.html

I remember well, just a few months ago, there were many alternatives
(remember "subway"?).

Some people would like you to believe that they pioneered the
mega-framework, amongst other things. Freely available documentation
undermines such claims if you know where to look (and actually choose
to do so).

Paul

[Steve Holden]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

James Cunningham wrote:

On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.comsaid:
>

>James Cunningham wrote:

>>On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <walterbyrd@ina me.comsaid:
>>>
>>>Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>>>walterbyr d a écrit :
>>>>You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
>>>>1.3.x ?
>>>>>
>>>Practicall y all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Certainly all of
>>>the lower priced hosters.
>>Not true. Dreamhost, at least, uses Apache 2.

>So you thin a single counter-example disproves an assertion that begins
>with "practicall y all"?

>
Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.
>
"Certainly all".
>
"Certainly" "all".
>

Certainly. But not my assertion.

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

[James Cunningham]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

On 2006-11-16 09:08:43 -0500, Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.comsaid:

James Cunningham wrote:

>On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <steve@holdenwe b.comsaid:
>>

>>James Cunningham wrote:
>>>On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <walterbyrd@ina me.comsaid:
>>>>
>>>>Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>>>>>walterby rd a écrit :
>>>>>You mean there are web hosting companies that are still using Apache
>>>>>1.3.x ?
>>>>>>
>>>>Practical ly all web-hosters still use Apache 1.3.x. Certainly all of
>>>>the lower priced hosters.
>>>Not true. Dreamhost, at least, uses Apache 2.
>>So you thin a single counter-example disproves an assertion that begins
>>with "practicall y all"?

>>
>Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
>priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.
>>
>"Certainly all".
>>
>"Certainly" "all".
>>

Certainly. But not my assertion.
>
regards
Steve

So I should be bothered to read the name of whom I'm replying to?

Sheesh. ;)

Best,
James

[Cameron Laird]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

In article <1163681949.338 244.323390@k70g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com>,
Luis M. González <luismgz@gmail. comwrote:

> .
> .
> .
>Perhaps it's timely to clarify the "newer" above: Guido
>made Python public in '89-90, and Rasmus showed PHP to
>others in '94-95.

>
>OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
>web development?
>As a generalp purpose language, it's older.
>But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
>look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
>come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
>all this hype).
>I remember well, just a few months ago, there were many alternatives
>(remember "subway"?).
>

I appreciate your clarification. I can report back that we
certainly move in different circles; I, for example, knew of
people with multi-million-dollar budgets deciding on Python-
based Web technology for *serious* applications in '96. Ruby
1.0, perhaps you'll recall, was a Christmas gift for 1996.
For this and allied reasons, it didn't occur to me to regard
Ruby as the senior "Web development language" among the two.

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

(replying to bruce - the post doesn't show up here)

bruce wrote:

>ummm bruno...
>>
>you don't 'need' apache to run php.

Yes, true, you can also install the cli version. Which has lots of
restrictions BTW.

>in fact, although i'm from the old hard c/c++ world.... way before web
>apps,

Web apps are not where I learned programming...

>i haven't really found much for most general apps (not ui/not threaded
>stuff) that php can't do..

I haven't really found much for most general apps that assembler can't
do - it's just too painful... !-)

--
bruno desthuilliers
python -c "print '@'.join(['.'.join([w[::-1] for w in p.split('.')]) for
p in 'onurb@xiludom. gro'.split('@')])"

[Luis M. González]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?


Fredrik Lundh ha escrito:

Luis M. González wrote:
>

But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
all this hype).

>
nah, people have built web stuff on Python for as long as we've had a web.
>
</F>

I know, but would you consider a python cgi application a good
competence against php?

[John Bokma]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

"Luis M. González" <luismgz@gmail. comwrote:

>
Fredrik Lundh ha escrito:
>

>Luis M. González wrote:
>>

But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started
to look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started
to come up (although Django has been in development for a long time
before all this hype).

>>
>nah, people have built web stuff on Python for as long as we've had a
>web.
>>
></F>

>
I know, but would you consider a python cgi application a good
competence against php?

php running as cgi you mean.

--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[walterbyrd]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?


James Cunningham wrote:

Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.

Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?

[James Cunningham]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

On 2006-11-16 12:46:05 -0500, "walterbyrd " <walterbyrd@ina me.comsaid:

>
James Cunningham wrote:
>

>Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
>priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.

>
Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?

Frankly, I can't find *anybody* who advertises hosting for <= $10 a
year - the cheapeast I can find is $18 - and such a plan would be too
limited for me to consider anyway.

But with easily-available promotional codes, you can pay less than that
at least for Dreamhost, which offers Apache 2.x and Python 2.4. I
consider it low-cost hosting, but YMMV.

Best
James

[John Bokma]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

James Cunningham <jameshcunningh am@gmail.comwro te:

On 2006-11-16 12:46:05 -0500, "walterbyrd " <walterbyrd@ina me.comsaid:
>

>>
>James Cunningham wrote:
>>

>>Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
>>priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.

>>
>Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?

>
Frankly, I can't find *anybody* who advertises hosting for <= $10 a
year - the cheapeast I can find is $18 - and such a plan would be too
limited for me to consider anyway.

hostingforabuck .com : $12/year, without domain name of course. Not sure on
Apache version or Python, but the guy who runs it is extremely helpful and
fast.

--
John MexIT: http://johnbokma.com/mexit/
personal page: http://johnbokma.com/
Experienced programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

[Paul Boddie]

Re: Python v PHP: fair comparison?

John Bokma wrote:

"Luis M. González" <luismgz@gmail. comwrote:

I know, but would you consider a python cgi application a good
competence against php?

>
php running as cgi you mean.

Perhaps not: he's referring to deployment on really cheap hosting
solutions which might support mod_php but wouldn't support anything
better than CGI for Python software. The suitability of mod_php and the
supposed unsuitability of mod_python for commodity hosting did come up
on comp.lang.pytho n some time ago, a while before certain other trends,
and has seemingly been discussed every year for several years:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.python/msg/ebf390af4ed6e92e

"Thus, for mod_python hosting to be reliable, you have to give each
user their own instance of the Apache server (proxied through a central
instance of Apache). This might, in fact, no longer be needed with the
latest mod_python, but I leave that to the mod_python experts in this
newsgroup to expound upon if so." (To which there was no response.)

This discussion only differs from those previous discussions [1] in the
sense that better hosting is now available for less, although you can't
get a virtual server for $1/month unless you have some contacts in the
business.

Paul

[1] http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?oi...on+PHP+hosting