Re: [PHP4BETA] Re: [PHP3] Help craft PHP description

Ron Chmara wrote: > > Mark Maggelet wrote: > > > > what about mentioning Zend? Isn't this the main difference between 3 and 4? > > Zend's great, but we have to keep in mind that it's one of the first of _many_ > possible closed source plug-ins for PHP, no? Mentioning them by name might be > a bit unfair to the other closed-source competition.... It'd be Rasmus' call, > I guess. > From what I can see Zend is not a closed source program. Some of the programs built around Zend might be, however, the Zend Engine seems to be very much open source. > > as far as I know the compiler, optimizer, and the cache thing are all things that > > are not available for perl asp or cf (I think there's a perl compiler actually). > > Perl compiles before running. PHP3 didn't, that's one of the reasons it was so > slow. Zend pre-compiles, like Perl. Result caching, and code optimization, are > pretty standard, so it won't _hurt_ to mention it as features. He's not talking about the compilation of the Zend engine (your method ain't exactly right either), he's talking about the seperate Zend programs, the compiler (TBR), optimizer (BETA) and the Zend Cache (TBR). > > > It seems to me that there should be an emphasis on things that only php > > has going for it. Also the word 'free' should probably be in there too. > > Well, "free" has a whole range of problems associated with it. Not all PHP > work is free, and Zend certainly isn't fsf inspired... open source seems > to be the de-facto "standard" for expressing the kind of licensing that > most of PHP falls under, *but* then you'd need to add that certain portions > are not open source....hm. Zend does offer free software. The Zend engine is free and basically open source. The Zend Optimizer is also free (although closed source). PHP4 definetly would fall under the open source definition.