Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taking PHP Seriously (2016)

slack.engineering

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 150 posts

Re: Taking PHP Seriously (2016)

#11

Post by zug_zug »

apeace wrote: post #6

So the entire argument is that PHP is single threaded and each request starts with no state? Am I missing anything else? I’m trying so hard not to rant here, so I just wanted to confirm that those are the only positives he outlines about the language.

IMO it's such a good thing about PHP that I think other stacks should follow that model (I assume ROR does).

I think it's a superior model to the long-running application. Unless your company has 0 developers in it who make a memory leak, or make a fatal uncaught exception.

Re: Taking PHP Seriously (2016)

#12

Post by glaucon »

apeace wrote: post #6

So the entire argument is that PHP is single threaded and each request starts with no state? Am I missing anything else? I’m trying so hard not to rant here, so I just wanted to confirm that those are the only positives he outlines about the language.

You might have missed this bit - "Did Facebook, Wikipedia, WordPress, Etsy, Baidu, Box, and more recently Slack all succeed in spite of using PHP?"

Re: Taking PHP Seriously (2016)

#16

Post by fuzzy2 »

zug_zug wrote: post #11
apeace wrote: post #6

So the entire argument is that PHP is single threaded and each request starts with no state? Am I missing anything else? I’m trying so hard not to rant here, so I just wanted to confirm that those are the only positives he outlines about the language.

IMO it's such a good thing about PHP that I think other stacks should follow that model (I assume ROR does). I think it's a superior model to the long-running application. Unless your company has 0 developers in it who make a memory leak, or make a fatal uncaught exception.

Hm. This is this and that is that. It is perfectly possible to write a stateless service hosted in a stateful process.

In fact, the popular PHP-FPM way to host PHP does just that.

If you want to take it to the extreme, there's always CGI, of course.

Re: Taking PHP Seriously (2016)

#17

Post by mgkimsal »

andreygrehov wrote: post #14

Given PHP 8 has been released, does Hack provide enough value to consider it as an alternative? My take on it is no, but I'm curious about other people's opinions.

only played around with it briefly a few years ago. my view is "probably not unless you've already used it, or have knowledge of some specific PHP issue you know you're going to need that Hack provides". I think 4-5 years ago, there was a point where Hack might have been able to grow out of niche status, but I think that time's passed, with the growing community around 'modern' PHP and the ecosystem provided via composer and frameworks.

Re: Taking PHP Seriously (2016)

#20

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

blibble wrote: post #13

how's PHP's websocket support? presumably if it's a thread per websocket then they're using something else to serve that?

There isn't direct support for WebSocket in PHP like there is for HTTP requests. But there are WebSocket servers written in PHP that work in a similar way to node.js.
Post reply on HN