By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,630 Members | 1,252 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,630 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Python v PHP: fair comparison?

P: n/a
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

Nov 14 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
50 Replies


P: n/a
walterbyrd wrote:
- PHP has a lower barrier to entry
Which kind of barrier do you mean -- syntax, availability, ...?

Also from what I know of PHP, language and API seem more unstable
and inhomogenous. CMIIW.

Regards,
Björn

--
BOFH excuse #219:

Recursivity. Call back if it happens again.

Nov 14 '06 #2

P: n/a
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
For the most part you wouldn't ever thing about writing data
conversion programs, GUI applications, Windows services, COM+ objects,
Linux daemons, simple scripts, socket server/client applications,
etc. in PHP (but all can be done in Python). Web apps are just one of
the many applications that Python can tackle. PHP is normally
relegated to dynamic web page creation and database interfacing of
a web application. I've never seen it promoted as a language
that can be used to develop a standalone non-web browser based
application (but I'm sure someone will tell me that it can be used
that way ;-).

I agree that you can use PHP to do some basic Web apps more
quickly and with more general availability in PHP than Python.
I think there is a reason that Java and Python are used to power
the larger application frameworks that I see (e.g. WebSphere,
WebLogic, Zope, etc.).

I find many hosting companies that have mod_python now (this
wasn't the case a couple of years ago). Hosting costs have
dropped so much during that time that getting Python doesn't
cost much (if any) extra.

I'd be surprised if there was more demand for PHP developers
than Python developers. Google lists 51 PHP jobs and 168
Python jobs in their internal jobs database (I just did a
quick search).

-Larry
Nov 14 '06 #3

P: n/a
I'd be surprised if there was more demand for PHP developers
than Python developers. Google lists 51 PHP jobs and 168
Python jobs in their internal jobs database (I just did a
quick search).
Yes, but Google is the company that hired Guido, and that does most of
it's dev in python.

Looking at other companies yields different results:

Workopolis:
PHP 120
Python 36

Monster.ca:
PHP more than 1000
Python 976

Nov 14 '06 #4

P: n/a

- Python is more readable, and more general purpose
Yes, php is only for web.
On the other hand, Python is a general purpose language and it can be
used for nearly anything you may want to do.
- PHP has awful backward compatibility
Yes. And it's also an ugly language to work with.
- PHP has a lower barrier to entry
I don't think it is any easier than python. Not even to begin with.
- Most inexpensive web-hosters support PHP, but not Python
Sad but true.
- PHP has far more pre-writen scripts available
For web projects, perhaps.
But I'm sure you can do everything better with python, especially with
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?
- There is more demand for PHP developers, than Python developers
So you want to be a web developer?
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.
And once you get a job, you will do everything better and faster than
the others, your quality will stand up from the rest and so your
reputation.
Then there will be more demand for "your skills".

Nov 15 '06 #5

P: n/a
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. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, 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/

Michael

On the other hand, Python is a general purpose language and it can be
used for nearly anything you may want to do.
- PHP has awful backward compatibility

Yes. And it's also an ugly language to work with.
- PHP has a lower barrier to entry

I don't think it is any easier than python. Not even to begin with.
- Most inexpensive web-hosters support PHP, but not Python

Sad but true.
- PHP has far more pre-writen scripts available

For web projects, perhaps.
But I'm sure you can do everything better with python, especially with
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?
- There is more demand for PHP developers, than Python developers

So you want to be a web developer?
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.
And once you get a job, you will do everything better and faster than
the others, your quality will stand up from the rest and so your
reputation.
Then there will be more demand for "your skills".
Nov 15 '06 #6

P: n/a
>Yes, php is only for web.
>
Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
manipulating my unix users in LDAP are written in PHP, 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/

Michael
Fair enough, this has been possible due to the enormous popularity of php.
You can also hit a nail with your shoe instead of using a hammer, and if you
try hard you may even succeed. You can also digg a a grave with a spoon
instead of a shovel, and after a couple of days you'll be finished.
You may be able to use php to create a stand alone app, but php was created
with the solely purpose of being a tool for creating dynamic web sites.
And you have to admit that using php for a non-web app is like trying to fit
a a square into a round hole.
Php is no more than a simplified C-ish language, dynamically typed with a
lot of functions aimed at web tasks. Without these built-in functions,
there's little you can do with it in your web apps.
On the otehr hand, you don't need a thousand built-in functions in python
for achieving every single task on a web site. You just write them, often
with just a couple of lines, because the language is that flexible an
consice.
You don't have to remember each and every function for every task, this is
ridiculuous.

I think that even as a general purpose language, python is still much more
adecuate, fast, fun and flexible than php for building web apps.

Luis

Nov 15 '06 #7

P: n/a
Olexandr Melnyk wrote:

PHP has a lower barrier to entry
I don't think so. Python has more intuitive syntax for beginners and is one of
the best choices for the first programming language to pick up.

I second this - before discovering Python (in a GSM module's guts) - I was being
steered in the direction of PHP by a friend - and I resisted, kicking and
screaming, as I found the syntax weird - I believe its not called Personal Home
Page for nothing...

- Hendrik

Nov 15 '06 #8

P: n/a
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.

Nov 15 '06 #9

P: n/a

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

Nov 15 '06 #10

P: n/a

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, but the
barrier to entry is very low.

Nov 15 '06 #11

P: n/a
walterbyrd wrote:
>
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.
I guessed that this was what you meant by "PHP has a lower barrier to
entry", even though others chose to interpret that in the context of
how easy or consistent the technology would seem to be in comparison
with Python. While it's true that PHP seems to be widely available, and
the newcomer can probably get immediate results by just publishing a
few files, the availability of relatively inexpensive virtual server
hosting seems to undermine claims that no-one supports Python together
with a modern selection of server programs.

I've been tempted to get some "dynamic" hosting at some point, and the
major difference between now and the last time I looked into this
(possibly about three or so years ago), is that back then you had to
spend a fair amount of money to get anything other than an
inconveniently accessible CGI directory requiring a version of
cgipython that could run on the inconveniently chosen version of
FreeBSD so beloved of certain hosting providers. Now, you can get a
virtual server populated with your own GNU/Linux distribution, or if
that sounds like too much work, there's a choice of hosting providers
that support Python plus certain servers "out of the box".

Things seem to have moved on, and very much for the better, too.

Paul

Nov 15 '06 #12

P: n/a

Michael Torrie wrote:
Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
manipulating 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.

Nov 15 '06 #13

P: n/a

walterbyrd wrote:
I don't know if this is a fair comparison or not.
Who cares? Anything involving PHP is a "billion flies can't be wrong"
type of statement.

I agree completely with your observation about PHP's lower cost of
access. This is ostensibly a good thing, but it also means that every
software-ignorant newbie dives straight into PHP and ten minutes later
they're a guru. The average quality of PHP developers is rock-bottom
and the average quality of PHP code is about the same. I don't like the
language either, but it's the use PHP is put to that spoils most of it,
more than language features itself.

Nov 15 '06 #14

P: n/a


On 2006-11-15 10:47:07 -0500, "Demel, Jeff"
<Je********@JavelinDirect.comsaid:
[...]
That's true, but I was lucky enough to find webfaction.com for python
hosting, including Django. Good prices and they know Python. I think
they used to be python-hosting.com or something.

-Jeff
Dirt-cheap Dreamhost also offers Python with Django (as well as Ruby
with Rails), though I haven't used those capabilities so I can't judge
how good the environment is. I suspect it isn't that great. The people
at Dreamhost are great; the service itself is - at best! - unreliable.

Best,
James

Nov 15 '06 #15

P: n/a
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_mailing_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

Nov 15 '06 #16

P: n/a

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

Nov 15 '06 #17

P: n/a
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.
Nov 15 '06 #18

P: n/a
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.
Nov 15 '06 #19

P: n/a
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...
Nov 15 '06 #20

P: n/a
walterbyrd a écrit :
Michael Torrie wrote:

>>Absolutely false. Most of my standalone, command-line scripts for
manipulating 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.
Nov 15 '06 #21

P: n/a
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...
Nov 16 '06 #22

P: n/a
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

Nov 16 '06 #23

P: n/a
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
Nov 16 '06 #24

P: n/a
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
Nov 16 '06 #25

P: n/a

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.

Nov 16 '06 #26

P: n/a

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.

Nov 16 '06 #27

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups .com>,
Luis M. González <lu*****@gmail.comwrote:
Nov 16 '06 #28

P: n/a
On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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

Nov 16 '06 #29

P: n/a
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

Nov 16 '06 #30

P: n/a
James Cunningham wrote:
On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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 "practically 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

Nov 16 '06 #31

P: n/a
On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comsaid:
James Cunningham wrote:
>On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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 "practically all"?
Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.

"Certainly all".

"Certainly" "all".

Best,
James

Nov 16 '06 #32

P: n/a

Cameron Laird ha escrito:
In article <11**********************@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups .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"?).

Nov 16 '06 #33

P: n/a
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>

Nov 16 '06 #34

P: n/a
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

Nov 16 '06 #35

P: n/a
James Cunningham wrote:
On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comsaid:
>James Cunningham wrote:
>>On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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 "practically 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

Nov 16 '06 #36

P: n/a
On 2006-11-16 09:08:43 -0500, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comsaid:
James Cunningham wrote:
>On 2006-11-16 05:46:45 -0500, Steve Holden <st***@holdenweb.comsaid:
>>James Cunningham wrote:
On 2006-11-15 20:59:26 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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 "practically 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

Nov 16 '06 #37

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups .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.
Nov 16 '06 #38

P: n/a
(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('@')])"
Nov 16 '06 #39

P: n/a

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?

Nov 16 '06 #40

P: n/a
"Luis M. González" <lu*****@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
Nov 16 '06 #41

P: n/a

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?

Nov 16 '06 #42

P: n/a
On 2006-11-16 12:46:05 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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

Nov 16 '06 #43

P: n/a
James Cunningham <ja**************@gmail.comwrote:
On 2006-11-16 12:46:05 -0500, "walterbyrd" <wa********@iname.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
Nov 16 '06 #44

P: n/a
John Bokma wrote:
"Luis M. González" <lu*****@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.python 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/com...f390af4ed6e92e

"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

Nov 16 '06 #45

P: n/a
Luis M. González wrote:
Cameron Laird ha escrito:
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).
Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while, and I know that
mod_python/httpdapy goes back at least to 1998 (and Python CGI predates
that significantly).

Nov 16 '06 #46

P: n/a

sj*******@yahoo.com ha escrito:
Luis M. González wrote:
Cameron Laird ha escrito:
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).

Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while, and I know that
mod_python/httpdapy goes back at least to 1998 (and Python CGI predates
that significantly).
Do not forget the subject of this thread.
Nobody is criticizing python here. I am a "believer"!
We are talking about important details that matter when choosing a
language, and specially when choosing one for web development.
I'm sure Yahoo, Google and other companies can afford having
knowledgeable people, hardware and resources to use python they way
they like.
The problem is (or was) for mere mortals trying to create a web site on
shared hostings.

We all know that mod_python has its issues, and still is not a common
or affordable feature in the vast mayority of web hosts. And prior to
that, you only had cgi or other rather unknown solutions.
mod_php had a clear advantage here. Perhaps not as a language but as an
ubiquitous and cheap alternative.

In the last months (and I said "months" not years) the situation
improved a lot, but still it is a fair to make a comparison.
My opinion is that python, as a language, is by far a much better
alternative for any use.
But php, as a platform, still has a many advantages, being availability
the main one.

Luis

Nov 17 '06 #47

P: n/a
sj*******@yahoo.com wrote:
Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGroups

</F>

Nov 17 '06 #48

P: n/a
Luis M. González skrev:
OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
web development?
[...]
The problem is (or was) for mere mortals trying to create a web site on
shared hostings.
Yes, that was the "barrier to entry" observation, but you have to
implicitly narrow the discussion to just that if you want statements
like the one above to stand. I agree with what you're saying in the
context of "mere mortals", but for businesses and other organisations,
who have more control over hosting infrastructure, Python has been
viable for a long time.
We all know that mod_python has its issues, and still is not a common
or affordable feature in the vast mayority of web hosts. And prior to
that, you only had cgi or other rather unknown solutions.
True. This kind of thing is what put the brakes on the adoption of
Webware and similar technologies where you have a long-running process
alongside the Web server processes: something a lot of commodity
hosting companies aren't interested in managing. I imagine that
mod_python could have been an acceptable vehicle for higher performance
Python hosting, given that you could just add it to the server program,
but the necessary isolation mechanisms were never developed. (And in
this context, it's interesting that the principal author of mod_python
now runs a hosting operation based on Linux-VServer technologies.)
mod_php had a clear advantage here. Perhaps not as a language but as an
ubiquitous and cheap alternative.
Agreed.
In the last months (and I said "months" not years) the situation
improved a lot, but still it is a fair to make a comparison.
The number of providers willing to run long-running processes alongside
Web server processes has certainly increased, due to an increased
demand for a certain non-Python Web framework whose technical
foundations virtually mandate such an environment. Nevertheless,
WebFaction (as an example of a more flexible provider) has been around
since the start of 2003.

Paul

Nov 17 '06 #49

P: n/a
Luis M. González wrote:
sj*******@yahoo.com ha escrito:
Luis M. González wrote:
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).
Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while, and I know that
mod_python/httpdapy goes back at least to 1998 (and Python CGI predates
that significantly).

Do not forget the subject of this thread.
Nobody is criticizing python here. I am a "believer"!
I was responding to the statement "since when has python been
considered a viable alternative for web development".

At any rate, I haven't had any problems finding cheap Python hosts, so
I think that's largely a straw man--there are _more_ PHP hosts out
there, but it's not as though you're limited to only 2-3 Python hosts.
There are plenty to choose from.

Nov 17 '06 #50

50 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.