Mailing-List: contact modperl-help@perl.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20040608223850.12743.qmail@web52810.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:38:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Shiflett <shiflett@php.net>
Reply-To: shiflett@php.net
Subject: Re: mod_perl presence at OSCON (and other CONs) is at danger
To: modperl@att.net, Modperl List <modperl@perl.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <060820042105.11354.40C62A060007137000002C5A2160280741049D0A9F0B0103@att.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

--- modperl@att.net wrote:
> BTW, I programmed a mod_perl based BBS system for a site. It got
> almost 200,000 (!) unique IP hits every day with the dual set-up
> (plain apache + mod_perl). This might be an example where others
> such as php and java servlet can't compete. Right?

Not in my opinion. Both PHP and mod_perl are mature enough that
performance differences are more likely to be due to the design of an
application rather than the language it is written in.

I've written applications in PHP that currently handle over 10 million
requests a day (the environment consists of four servers), and there's
still room to grow. With a compiler cache and an intelligent design
(including data storage), PHP can handle just about anything (look at
Yahoo).

I personally think mod_perl's strengths are in its rich feature set. Only
after watching a few of Geoff's talks (and one of Stas's) did I realize
exactly what PHP developers are missing. They speak about things like
ties, closures, and globs. Plus, PHP is limited to the content generation
phase, so mod_perl has a pretty big advantage there. Geoff describes
mod_perl as the Apache API in Perl. While this is probably obvious to all
of you, it's not something I realized on my own.

Of course, CPAN is also a pretty big trump card. :-)

Chris

-- 
Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html