Re: [PEPr] Comment on PHP::PHP_Callback

Le 4 mai 07 à 18:01, Joe Stump a écrit :

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. It just takes common sense to know beforehand this is going to be slow.

Hrm. I don't know what I'm talking about? Of the last three major sites I've worked on they include Care2.com (40m+ page views a month and 6m+ registered users), Enotes.com (15m+ page views a month) and Digg.com (Top 100 site on the net, 1m+ registered users). So, please, educate yourself before you say that I obviously am an idiot. Now, I'll explain myself a bit more.

Because the companies you worked for can afford more hardware, doesn't mean everyone can. Because hardware can sometimes cope with your programming mistakes doesn't mean everyone should make programming mistakes.

PHP cycles are, in fact, the easiest part of your architecture to scale. File storage is difficult, but possible and DB traffic is a huge PITA to scale. Obviously, his package takes more cycles to run, I wasn't arguing that. The point I was making is that PHP cycles are usually the very last thing that a large site worries about. I could give two shits less about 5 extra PHP calls in my code. Now, 5 extra DB calls are an entirely different story.

That's because you are not the average Joe. The average Joe (or the average me for instance) cares about his code performance, as much as he cares about his database performance and his girlfriend cycles. When you tell people "hey look there is this new way to use callbacks", they will start using it and polluting PEAR, just like they did with PEAR_Errors. This is what I would like to avoid. Now, I think we can stop the discussion here since there has been enough arguments pro and against this proposal. The rest is just 'Look, mine is bigger than yours'. -- Bertrand Mansion Mamasam Work : http://www.mamasam.com Blog : http://golgote.freeflux.net