Mike,
I would suggest you look at the totally bogus mindcraft benchmarks of
linux/apache. Those were orders of magnitude more bogus than anything here,
yet ended up being useful.
Further, many posters seem to confuse a discussion of PHP's performance with
a dicusion of its quality as a language overall. That is a mistake. People
need to realize that these benchmarks test one narrow aspect of PHP, and are
not a ranking of its quality as a language. There is an important difference
there.
"Mike Robinson":
> The benchmark code is pre-alpha and incomplete as the author
> states expressly. 'Useful' does not imply reliable, factual, or
> scientific. In my view, what I've seen and read is neither useful,
> nor harbours any of the other qualities, mentioned above, that
> reasonable people might consider important. IMHO, the benchmarks
> are bogus from the get go, and this discussion is moot."the benchmarks are
bogus from the get go, and this discussion is moot."
I have yet to see anything approching the care and completness of this guys
benchmarks, pre-alpha and bogus or not with respect to PHP vis a vis other
languages. In contrast to plenty of others they are open about their flaws,
fully describe methadology and allow others to repeat them. Frankly, they
seem to do a good job of testing what they set out to test, nested loops,
array indexing and so on. aka they are as "reliable, factual, and
scientific" as anything else I have seen put out. The open source community
loves to critize, but I see few of these theoretical "real world" benchmarks
floating around.
I'm frankly surprised at some of the strong reactions to these benchmarks...
think I'm going to get back to work :)
- August