Is this meant to be run on a web hosting service that supports PHP in the 'traditional' way or do you need permission to run this as a daemon?
If it's the former, I can definitely see its benefits, but if it's the latter I can only imagine the target audience being people who refuse to program in anything but PHP and people who are by some bizarre policy required to use PHP but are allowed to run their own HTTP server.
There is no question that the PHP implementation of these APIs (think: Socket, SystemV, POSIX, etc) is very underwhelming compared to something you'd get in Python, Java, or nearly any language. And it's partly because of that that I felt it would be irresponsible for me not to include a disclaimer at the top of my github readme:
For many reasons PHP is not an optimal language choice for creating servers or daemons. I created this library so if you must use PHP for these things, you can do it with ease and produce great results. But if you have the choice, Java, Python, Ruby, etc, are all better suited for this.
So that being said:
With a general-purpose daemon library, there's a 3rd use-case to what you described: People who need to create daemons/servers/etc that use a large existing codebase: maybe it needs to share the 80 models that run your primary website. Maybe you've written a large domain-specific library. That sort of thing.
While it's a little more difficult for me to apply those reasons to a Tornado port, I'd like to hear from the developers first before I dismissed their work.
However, for existing projects and/or existing teams there might be another reason to stick with PHP: As a common denominator across all team members.
Blanket statements like yours reek of elitism and have no real value behind them, other than "this language sucks you should use this one".
There are many reasons to pick/use PHP, indispite its (lack of proper) language design. Easy to find extremly cheap programmers. Easy and cheap to host. Good and fast c based libraries.
But in no reality is its language design considered competitive by any one except by uneducated hobbyists.
I write in PHP not because it is my hobby, but because I know it very well and it makes me a lot of money. The companies I work for use PHP because they can find many talented developers. Using a proper framework, being very strict about unit testing, and following other best practices makes our codebase a joy to work with.
I'm sorry if you feel this isn't possible with PHP, but my point of elitism still stands. Who cares if PHP isn't "competitive", whatever that means? It works, we can create applications that are used by thousands of people a day to do important things (online education in my case), and most of all it brings in money.
I used PHP professionally for almost four years, at places like Flickr and Wikipedia. It definitely packs a lot of power - it's fast at what it does, has every library you probably want built in already or available with a little config. And, out of the box, it matches the request-response loop in web programming much more simply than most languages do.
Unfortunately, even with these good qualities, PHP just has a lot of misdesign in it. It's not elitism to point this out.
Just look carefully at your own practices and you'll see that a lot of what you do is defending yourself against bad practices that PHP is subtly (or unsubtly) trying to impose on you. It's telling that PHP is a template language, but in order to achieve useful results, you really have to use another template language on top of it, like Smarty or Symfony or whatever the cool thing is these days. And even so, to this day, Rasmus thinks that such frameworks are misguided, and that real programmers should just use the built-in templating of PHP (i.e. embedding blocks of code in HTML) and nothing else. How anyone can work for over 15 years on the web and still think this is beyond me.
For most of its existence PHP's only guiding principle was expediency and one-off hacks. That's how you get a 'feature' where you can inject evil values into the script just by parsing CGI arguments. Or, the ability to just ignore errors by prepending an at sign. This is almost NEVER a good idea, and introducing a feature like that means that in any large project you never can be sure what's really going on, without actually looking for all instances of this all the time.
And what kind of language makes a keyword like 'array()'? PHP is a supposedly dynamic language, but it almost goes out of its way to make manipulating complex data structures difficult. Compare to Perl and Python, which make deep data structures easy and also easy to transform and manipulate. Instead PHP has insecure, hacky misfeatures like variable variable names. This is something that beginner programmers often want, until they learn about actual data structures.
I have a feeling you may not be all that familiar with other languages, or for that matter, PHP. There are experts who choose PHP, but they acknowledge these difficulties.
I have almost 100K lines of PHP code and only one of them spits out HTML. That would be the line that fetches the initial HTML template which is static and spits it out. After that, everything is XHR and web sockets. The DOM is manipulated directly by client-side JavaScript.
Why use PHP? Libraries to use any database I can imagine. Existing libraries for any API I can imagine. Language maturity. Familiarity and similarity to C.
I know the mines and I stay away. On top of that, those maintaining the language are aware of them too and they are slowly deprecating them.
> PHP is a supposedly dynamic language, but it almost goes out of its way to make manipulating complex data structures difficult.
Why would you use complex data structures in PHP? If you did, why try to manipulate them?
PHP is a language that is made for the web. On the web, anything that is computation heavy, like data manipulation, should be done on the client's side. Not that JavaScript is much better at data structures and manipulation, but at least it probably has a monster of a CPU and a boatload of RAM to smooth things over.
"PHP is simply more widespread. That has real value!"
"If you encounter a problem, someone else ran into it as well."
So you imply you can't be the first anymore to run into a new problem with PHP?
"If it's a legitimate error in PHP, it'll get fixed and will get attention."
If you find a legitimate error in the implementation of _any_ language it'll get fixed and will get attention. Unless it's abandoned, or no longer mantained.
"On other platforms? Yours may be the sole voice on the issue. Nobody will listen."
This is just non-sense.
Have you filed a bug for PHP? str_getcsv and parse_ini are both still broken.
I did not claim one cannot run succesfull projects in PHP. I stated the exact opposite. And im doing that again now, in the hope your reading is just suddenly improved.
PHP has a legacy. It started off as a template language, and slowly got more and more control structures. So, its an accidental programming language.
Language are not competitive, but language design features sure are. Nobody with the actual skillset to design and implement a programming language would consider, for example, merging vectors and dictionaries into some kind of mutated frankenarray.
This does not make the language unusable. And language design features are not the most crucial arguments to pick one language over the other in the short term. But they are, for a community and industry in the long term.
To my surprise, i read in this thread that PHP now finally has a cyclic garbage collector. That's a good example of a competitive language design feature, which utility is not in any way subjective. A large range of algorithms and design patterns couldn't be implemented efficiently or effectively without this particular feature.
And its too easy to cry "elitism" every time somebody points this out.
Actually, JavaScript and Lua have merged vectors and Dictionaries.
>Actually, JavaScript and Lua have merged vectors and Dictionaries.
I'm not sure about Lua, but in the case of Javascript, it's not entirely true. Arrays are objects, yes, but objects are not arrays.
So, unless you are extending the build-in array type, objects do not behave as arrays. They are not recognized as arrays, and more importantly, no modern javascript engine actually implements arrays as hashes.
For example {}.length has no value. It does not have a length of zero, it does not have a length at all. Visa versa, when looking at an object-map as a 'map', you'll get the array entries, as well as the length property, and the push and pop methods.
It's orthogonal. Imagine a javascript engine having no special implementation for an Array. We could implement it on top of the object-map. So, an array does not behave as a map, its implemented in a map. There's a clear distinction.
But the parallels with PHP are interesting. Both languages were not designed with the intent of large applications, but with the intent of adding a small piece of isolated logic to what is mostly a template. Both languages have had a lot of flack for their early design choices as well. People are still upset how Javascript handles casting (which is similar to how PHP handles it), and they are still upset how Javascript handles scoping (which is again similar to how PHP handles it).
Where the languages start differing, is that Javascript is much more reflective, which allows one to fix many language flaws in library or framework code, to suit different use-cases like the development of large scale projects. (just consider the hundreds of class-based systems implemented in Javascript)
But even for Javascript, the same logic applies. Considering the role and purpose it has now, the language design would have been different, if it was not for backwards compatibility.
And there as well, people are trying to figure out ways to make it radically better. Dart comes to mind. Compiling other languages into javascript. (coffeescript, gwt, etc.)
And even arguments in favor of Node.js are all based on the assumption that we are stuck with Javascript in the browser.
And just as with PHP, the original authors themselves, make no secret that their language design wasn't optimized or optimal for how we are using it now.
Why is this bad?
Whats the order of complexity of adding an element in the middle of "an array" in PHP?
So, it's bad, because it makes it very confusing, what the exact implementation is. If you can't tell how much slower your algorithm that calculates something from an 'frankenarray' gets, when the array gets bigger, you have a problem.
That's one problem. The other problem is with language itself. When we call something an array, which isn't actually an array (an array being a very specific implementation of a vector) people get confused.
Imagine how you would feel if PHP used the word 'variable' to mean function and the word 'function' to mean variable.
So, a hash and an array are not just semantically different (that they refer to a completely different ADT's), but they are also completely distinct implementations of those ADT's.
Now, this is not a problem, when you are using PHP as it was originally intended. To add a small bit of logic to a template that mostly uses fast, well written c functions in it's built-in library.
But people are abusing PHP to write large scale libraries and frameworks. Many riddled with security issues, and unpredictable performance bottlenecks, because the language wasn't designed to actually allow you to write well defined algorithms.
Now, we've seen workarounds for these problems. Facebook wrote a PHP to C compiler, and moved all crucial algorithms to C. You can use unit-testing to supplement the lack of any usable type information, and to combat the automatic casting that PHP does (which creates all kinds of bugs in edge cases, that is hard to track or test against). You can use profiling to track performance issues, and fix code that interacts with frankenarrays, in a sort of trail-and-error kind of way.
People once wrote all their code in ASM. Discipline can make all the difference. But highly skilled disciplined, well educated professionals aren't the target audience of PHP.
All this required discipline can be justified on practical grounds. PHP programmers are generally paid the worst (or as an employer would call, are the cheapest). Hosting is cheap. And for many use-cases you can just drop in ready to go code (Wordpress, Drupal, Joombla, etc.) and just skin it.
So, i'm not saying picking PHP is a bad financial choice for a company. If you don't take on difficult projects, and don't intent to hire highly skilled coders, it can be cheap and productive.
But that doesn't make the language any better..
It's not your assertion that PHP is a crappy language that I disagree with. I fully agree there. Where I disagree with you is in your assessment that a) there aren't many skilled programmers who use PHP, and c) language features of PHP make it very difficult or impossible to write well-designed software.
As to your assertion that PHP is only good for simple projects employing low-skilled developers, tell that to the various PHP startups paying top dollar for skilled PHP developers.
PHP arrays are actually ordered hash tables. This information is readily available. If you really need a real array, there is SplArray.
> Now, we've seen workarounds for these problems. Facebook wrote a PHP to C compiler, and moved all crucial algorithms to C.
At the scale of Facebook, nobody uses scripting languages, so I doubt this is purely because of PHP. This would be like me telling you to not to use RoR because Twitter switched to Scala (people said this, but those people are stupid and I'm not among them.) Twitter and Facebook have problems you and I are unlikely to have.
> You can use unit-testing to supplement the lack of any usable type information, and to combat the automatic casting that PHP does (which creates all kinds of bugs in edge cases, that is hard to track or test against). You can use profiling to track performance issues, and fix code that interacts with frankenarrays, in a sort of trail-and-error kind of way.
PHP's type system is crazy, that is absolutely true. But it's not as hard to work around or as frequently a problem as you're suggesting, at least in my experience. JavaScript is another language that has a crazy-ish type system, but it doesn't get the hate that PHP does.
I have never had a case where PHP's arrays caused performance problems, but that's probably because I've also never written an application that didn't interact with some kind of back-end store like a database that was inevitable slower. I've done a fair amount of work to make apps faster, and the big wins were always in fixing bad data access or caching patterns and algorithms. I imagine that there would be a point when I need to worry about not using PHP arrays, but I guess I haven't hit it. And again, if/when I do, there's always SplArray.
> But people are abusing PHP to write large scale libraries and frameworks. Many riddled with security issues, and unpredictable performance bottlenecks, because the language wasn't designed to actually allow you to write well defined algorithms.
There are some really shitty PHP projects. I suspect a big part of that is that they took off before there was the widespread knowledge of best-practices we have now. (I'm assuming you're thinking of wordpress, drupal and joomla.) I've worked with Wordpress a bit, unfortunately, and the main reason it's so damned slow is because the queries are badly written, and the data access and caching patterns are awful. PHP's arrays never crossed my mind as a bottleneck, because they don't even show up in my profiling tools.
For what it's worth, I used to see a lot of people's code because the company I worked for required code samples when we were interviewing people. I saw a lot of really shitty RoR code, and I do not blame that on the language or the framework.
a) didn't make that assement b) ?? c) difficult, yes
>As to your assertion that PHP is only good for simple projects employing low-skilled developers, tell that to the various PHP startups paying top dollar for skilled PHP developers.
No, my assertion was that PHP is only a good economic choice, when you choose to hire low-skilled, cheap employees. That's its niche.
>Twitter and Facebook have problems you and I are unlikely to have.
Agree. But that does not make what Facebook did with PHP, anything less than working around the issues caused by the initial commitment to PHP.
>JavaScript is another language that has a crazy-ish type system, but it doesn't get the hate that PHP does.
But it did. Even now, claiming that Javascript's language design isn't optimal isn't somethign people will argue against. Say the same thing about PHP, and you get threads like these...
>I have never had a case where PHP's arrays caused performance problems, but that's probably because I've also never written an application that didn't interact with some kind of back-end store like a database that was inevitable slower.
Now, the type of problems I'm pointing at, are the ones that read their head when the datasize gets larger. For example, an algorithm interacting with an array in PHP. Every loop it inserts or removes an element. Now depending on where that data can be found in the array, and if it's key is a number or a string, if these number-keys are close together in range or not, the algorithmic complexity is anything from O(n) to (2^n).
In other words, the normal fauna of sorting algorithms are very hard, if not impossible to correctly implement in PHP.
This is not very relevant, if you just need a good sorting function for your array, since that is build-in. This is not relevant if you datasizes are always small.
So, this is not relevant in the small-scale world. But if there is a chance that will need to be implementing a complicated algorithm in PHP, that perhaps needs to interact with large datastructures, than PHP is a dangerous choice.
Beyond the limited scope of a database powered template with a bit of logic, it is simply not suited. It is not designed well enough to be 'general purpose' programming language, and its civic duty of all to warn those who think it is. (like the authors of this Node.php project)
I generally agree with your technical criticisms of the language (I generated a bit of heat and light a few months ago with a blog post called "PHP is not an acceptable COBOL"), but I don't think your assertions about the economics are entirely correct. I don't think most companies choose PHP because they expect it will let them get cheap help -- I don't think most companies actually choose PHP. They end up with PHP for any number of reasons that don't have anything to do with long-term planning. (Also, if you were putting together a database-backed web site in the early 2000s, there's a very good chance you'd go with either ASP or PHP unless you had a lot of experience in web programming in another language. After you built up sufficient inertia, switching would be difficult.)
On the flip side, there are a lot of companies out here in Silicon Valley using Ruby on Rails because it fits very, very well into the niche you describe: take a bunch of Rails gems and learn just enough Ruby to hold it all together with spit and duct tape. If I were starting a company and wanting to hit the "low-skilled, cheap niche," the only downside to choosing Rails is that low-skilled Rails programmers frequently don't recognize that they're low-skilled, because the mere fact that they've chosen Rails makes them think they're definitionally awesome.
(N.B.: I like Rails a lot, but gosh, it's attitudinal.)
Your question was: Why is this bad? (referring to frankenarrays of PHP)
The summary of my answer was: 1. you can't easily tell the algorithmic complexity of most algorithms in PHP involving these "arrays" 2. naming something an array, that doesn't have the associated algorithmic complexity of an array, is misleading and hurts education, research and knowledge sharing.
I explained both these answers, with two examples: 1. Whats the order of complexity of adding an element in the middle of "an array" in PHP? (i'll answer: its undefined) 2. What would you think if PHP named a function a a variable, and a variable a function?
So, I did in detail answer you question.
> you threw in a slew of insults and opinions about PHP and PHP programmers.
It wasn't meant to be insulting. And the majority of my reply was a direct answer to your question. I think it was just a bit too broadly stated, for you to see the forest through the trees of my answer. And then i went off topic for your particular reply.
I hope I clarified it now.
I mostly agree with your post but you've gone way over the top on this statement. PHP is pretty analogous to the majority of languages in terms of syntax, structure, and capability. Frameworks written in PHP are no more likely to have security issues or unpredictable performance bottlenecks than any other language. Certainly nothing prevents you from writing well defined algorithms.
PHP's "arrays" are both vectors and hash tables at the same time. I agree that there is no reason to combine those concepts (although I love ordered hash tables). But ultimately there isn't much harm in it; it's just an extreme example of typelessness.
You are right, i went over board.
>Frameworks written in PHP are no more likely to have security issues or unpredictable performance bottlenecks than any other language
I suspect there is a measurable relationship between average quality of ecosystem and how easily or difficult a language is to use. But that would not be a fair argument: a language being easy should be a good thing.
>Certainly nothing prevents you from writing well defined algorithms.
Well, not being able to guess the order of complexity of many of the core operations on datastructures, does make it a lot harder. It's generally undefined, at least by the language spec. And when the internal implementations of core datastructures change between versions, you can't even reliably implement the typical collection of sorting algorithms.
The reasons this isn't a problem at the smale scale, is that the most common operations are actually all build-in with good defaults.
>But ultimately there isn't much harm in it; it's just an extreme example of typelessness.
PHP is not typeless, just messy with types. Depending on the type, you can use different syntactical operators and you are unable to implement those same contructs for other types. Also dependent on the type, is the difference between value- and object- semantics. However, this logic is not consist with the actual algorithmic complexity. Strings are copy-on-write, for example. So you are technically passing a reference (from a performance POV), but acting like it's not.
PHP is a dynamically typed language, with lots of run-time type errors, when things don't match. We even have all kinds of functions to determine types. It's definately not typeless.
That's just an optimization; it's not a very significant detail. All languages have these little details. Java, for example, caches and reuses Number instances if the value is below 127.
> PHP is a dynamically typed language
It's also weakly typed. You can, for the most part, assume that the type isn't very important. If you've got the value 12, it doesn't matter much if it's stored as an int, float, or string. But obviously if you attempt to do an operation not supported by the value then you'll get an error. There's nothing surprising about that.
PHP arrays just take the idea of an index and allow it to be both strings or integers. In both cases, you're providing a value for the key and getting out another value. It's pretty easy to explain. The issue, I'd say, is that programmers rarely ever index by both integers and strings in the same structure. There are also performance differences but hash tables are so fast that you need to be doing something unusual for it to matter.
That being said there definitively good frameworks out there for PHP and having good libraries is much more important than the syntax of the language, so becoming familiar enough with another language until you are as productive as with PHP might not be worth the effort for you.
Seriously ...
It doesn't matter which language is "objectively better as a programming language", just use whatever you enjoy the most. If it's PHP, then have fun coding in it rather that use something else because some people on the internet think you should. There are tons of very successful project in PHP, including giant ones, because at some point you stop circlejerking and start coding.
Just make sure you know what else exists out there and try other things here and there to discover new languages and other ways to do things, but that's a general programming rule, not something limited to php.
Guess what? Every language, framework, technique, theory, etc. sucks because someone else thinks theirs is better. "Oh youre a JavaScript person? Eww, action script is better, yours sucks. Like C++? Gross! ISO C is far superior! Using Rails? Well I feel sorry for you because Sinatra is faster and less bloated". Point is, no matter what your platform, stack, or combination of technology choices are someone will inevitably rant about how it sucks then get a blog post about it on the front page of HN.
Seriously, enough with the crusades and religious fervor over your development choices. Let's compare apples to apples and be constructive in our criticisms. Instead of looking at nodephp and balking because it's in PHP how about criticizing it based on its merits. What are the goals? Does it achieve those goals? Are there similar projects that do it better? What are the use cases for this? This thread started that way and is now devolving into another religious dispute.
Comparing it to nodejs is fair if you take into account that it's best used by those with hosting restrictions or people who are just partial to PHP and those who want to use it with large existing projects. It's not fair to throw out general "PHP sucks" arguments. That's not relevant. Sucky or not, does this software work and is it useful? Yeah.
We were talking about if PHP is the right language to use if there is legacy code and hosting does not plays a role.
To me the concept of a fun programming language does not make sense. Programming languages, frameworks, etc are tools and they suited for certain task. If you use the right tool for the right task programming is fun. PHP, however, is not the most productive tools for any (reasonably complex) task. This is just a fact. If you want to challenge that fact, give a concrete counter-example.
However, like I said before you can still be productive in PHP. I am still doing occasional programming in PHP and I don't hate it. I just wouldn't use it for a new project.
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-de...
Previous discussion:
You're saying “Don't use PHP, it sucks.” He's saying, “I don't care, it lets me turn code into money and that's all I want.”
Here's another scenario where I could imagine using PHP. Suppose I'm starting a company, and I'm starting it solo. I've been using PHP successfully for many years, and I know it and the environment (Apache, etc.) really well. I know what libraries are good, what libraries are not good, I have a framework that I like, and that I know how to set up to my liking. By the way, I'm really excited about this company.
Now, PHP is pretty awful as a programming language. I really don't like it. But the reality is, I am going be dramatically more efficient with it. If I were to use Rails, it would take me at the very least a week or two to really be able to use it without checking documentation constantly, and it would probably take me months to be at a proficiency where I was totally comfortable with it, and the environment it lives in, and figured out which libraries to use with it and so on.
During those months, when I should be focussing on building my business, talking to customers, getting feedback, learning more about marketing, I am instead dealing with the friction of learning a new programming environment. If I had stuck with PHP, all I have to do is sit at a terminal and let the code flow out of my fingertips. All of my actual thinking could go into the important stuff.
I don't deny that PHP is pretty terrible as a programing language. I do however deny that there are no reasons to use it for a new project.
It also wraps Silex and includes Guzzle (some sort of API consuming thing). Trying to gain credibility from using Node's name seems a little disingenuous given that it's microframework with an event loop of some sort plugged in, and an analogous 'hello world'.
All a "server" is, is a daemon that listens on a port. That's what it does. And it uses LibEvent thus the "node" comparisons.
Though I agree with whomever said that it would be better to compare this to Tornado.
I can imagine any event-based library will now warrant a comparison to Node. However, I've not seen things like EventMachine calling itself Node.Ruby, or Tornado calling itself Node.Python. Or NginX calling itself Node.Server.
That's my bugbear. It feels like linkbait.
Re: the server stuff. I was poorly trying to make the point you made further up, about PHP not being well suited to long running processes or being daemonised. I may well be wrong, but each request will get its own event loop, no?
Such people exist in every language community. You name the famous language and there you will fine people wanting to do everything in that language. This is nothing to specific to php.
There are various reasons for that, Once a person learns a language it becomes an investment- In time and other things and, as time grows out a person begins to think in that language, its paradigms, its idiomatic way of working. He may learn more than one language. But he will bear allegiance to one specific language.