Python v PHP: fair comparison?

[walterbyrd]

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

[Steve Holden]

James Cunningham wrote:

On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <wa********@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 [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

[James Cunningham]

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

James Cunningham wrote:

>On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <wa********@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]

Cameron Laird ha escrito:

In article <11************ **********@m73g 2000cwd.googleg roups.com>,
Luis M. González <lu*****@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]

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]

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]

James Cunningham wrote:

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

>James Cunningham wrote:

>>On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <wa********@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 [phone] [phone]
Holden Web LLC/Ltd http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings http://del.icio.us/steve.holden

[James Cunningham]

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

James Cunningham wrote:

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

>>James Cunningham wrote:
On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd " <wa********@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]

In article <11************ **********@k70g 2000cwa.googleg roups.com>,
Luis M. González <lu*****@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]

(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 'o****@xiludom. gro'.split('@')])"

[Luis M. González]

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?