Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.php > #13625 > unrolled thread

query: how many use PHP for linux scripts

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php

Contents

  query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-13 02:17 -0600
    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2014-05-13 10:37 +0200
    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 11:52 +0100
    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts "Auric__" <not.my.real@email.address> - 2014-05-13 13:28 +0000
      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 10:29 -0400
    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Collin Pruitt <hellow+newsgroup@binenv.com> - 2014-05-13 11:00 -0400
      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-13 10:05 -0600
        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2014-05-13 11:32 -0500
          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 19:09 +0100
            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 21:35 +0100
              Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-13 16:10 -0500
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-13 23:03 +0100
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-13 19:55 -0400
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-13 20:26 -0400
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-13 20:37 -0400
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:18 -0600
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 08:20 -0400
                            PHP Gui Toolkits (was: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-14 14:58 +0200
                              Re: PHP Gui Toolkits crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:04 -0600
                                Re: PHP Gui Toolkits Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-15 14:38 +0200
                                  Re: PHP Gui Toolkits The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 13:59 +0100
                            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:01 -0600
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-14 06:40 -0400
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 08:23 -0400
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:00 -0600
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 14:49 -0500
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 02:44 -0600
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:17 +0100
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:39 -0600
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-14 12:29 +0100
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-14 14:54 -0500
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 21:50 +0100
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 22:49 -0400
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2014-05-15 09:45 -0500
                            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 17:35 +0100
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:07 -0600
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2014-05-15 07:58 -0400
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 09:55 -0600
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-15 08:08 -0400
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:04 -0600
              Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 04:42 +0100
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:21 -0600
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 12:32 +0100
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 13:39 +0100
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 15:23 +0100
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-14 20:00 +0200
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 21:48 +0100
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 22:18 +0100
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 23:10 +0100
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-14 22:05 +0100
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 23:07 +0100
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 22:51 -0400
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-05-15 12:34 +0000
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 14:52 +0100
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:13 -0600
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 17:48 +0100
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-16 01:12 -0600
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-05-16 11:29 +0000
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-16 13:03 +0100
                          PHP integers (was: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-16 14:16 +0200
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-15 10:03 -0400
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-15 16:26 +0100
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:07 -0600
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-15 17:37 +0100
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-15 19:14 +0200
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-05-16 02:45 +0100
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-16 09:25 +0100
                            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-16 09:14 -0400
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-16 01:17 -0600
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-05-15 19:33 +0200
              Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 02:36 -0600
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-14 10:09 +0100
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:58 -0600
            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2014-05-13 21:23 +0000
              Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-13 19:02 -0400
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:24 -0600
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-14 17:23 -0400
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 22:53 -0400
                    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 02:13 -0600
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2014-05-15 06:09 -0400
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:16 -0600
                        Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-05-15 18:49 +0200
                          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-05-16 12:02 +0000
                            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-16 08:17 -0600
                              init-system, bash, etc. (was: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-05-16 18:48 +0200
                      Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-15 08:02 -0400
                  Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-05-15 03:16 +0200
          Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-13 12:20 -0600
            Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> - 2014-05-13 13:35 -0500
              Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2014-05-13 19:04 -0400
              Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> - 2014-05-14 03:26 -0600
                Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2014-05-14 08:28 -0400
    Re: query: how many use PHP for linux scripts The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2014-05-13 17:26 +0100

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#13719

On 5/15/2014 8:34 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2014-05-14, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 13/05/14 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
>>>> around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>>>>
>>>> Non-issues in PHP.
>>>>
>>> string handling is the chief reason I prefer C..
>>
>> That seems odd since PHP has almost every single low-level C string
>> function available to it.  You can strspn and strncmp to your heart's
>> content in PHP.  Pretty much the only ones missing are strcat and strcpy
>> but, surely, they can't be why you prefer C.
>>
>> A PHP translation of C string handling would inevitably be simpler since
>> there would be no need manage the storage.  That's the biggest advantage
>> in my opinion, even if never used any of PHP's more complex string
>> manipulation.
>
> white program the reads a text file and swaps every pair of lines and writes
> a new file.
>
> so
>
> one
> two
> three
> four
>
>
> becomes
>
>
> two
> one
> four
> three
>
>
>
>
>
> design it to work  on any text file.
>
>
>
>
> including files with lines larger than  RAM + swap.
>
>
>
>
> if it must work, it's easier in C.
>
>

And just how realistic is this?  Anyone can come up with an example that 
highlights the advantages (or disadvantages) of a particular language. 
Your "test" is pretty worthless.

And BTW - I could easily do this in PHP, JAVA and even BASIC just as 
easily (in some cases even more so) than in C.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13721

Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> writes:

> On 2014-05-14, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 13/05/14 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>><snip>
>>>> I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
>>>> around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>>>>
>>>> Non-issues in PHP.
>>>>
>>> string handling is the chief reason I prefer C..
>>
>> That seems odd since PHP has almost every single low-level C string
>> function available to it.  You can strspn and strncmp to your heart's
>> content in PHP.  Pretty much the only ones missing are strcat and strcpy
>> but, surely, they can't be why you prefer C.
>>
>> A PHP translation of C string handling would inevitably be simpler since
>> there would be no need manage the storage.  That's the biggest advantage
>> in my opinion, even if never used any of PHP's more complex string
>> manipulation.
>
> white program the reads a text file and swaps every pair of lines and writes
> a new file.

I'd go:

  function write_line($fin, $fout)
  {
       while (($c = fgetc($fin)) !== false && fputs($fout, $c) && $c != "\n");
       return $c !== false;
  }
   
  function skip_line($fin, $fout)
  {
       while (($c = fgetc($fin)) !== false && $c != "\n");
       return $c !== false;
  }
   
  function write_swapped_pair($fin, $fout)
  {
       $here = ftell($fin);
       skip_line($fin, $fout);
       if (write_line($fin, $fout))
            return fseek($fin, $here) == 0 &&
                   write_line($fin, $fout) &&
                   skip_line($fin, $fout);
       else return false;
  }
   
  function write_swapped_lines($fin, $fout)
  {
       while (write_swapped_pair($fin, $fout));
  }

the behaviour with an odd number of lines, and when then last line is
not properly terminated, was not given so I took the easiest option!

This is not much more than a translation of what I'd do in C, which in a
way was my point.

The main difference is exchanging the test for EOF to false which takes
a little care (!== rather than !=), but then testing for EOF in C takes
case (you must use the right type variable).  I don't think this is a
counter-example, but it's possible I missed the point your were making.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13724

On 05/15/2014 06:34 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2014-05-14, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 13/05/14 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>> I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
>>>> around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>>>>
>>>> Non-issues in PHP.
>>>>
>>> string handling is the chief reason I prefer C..
>>
>> That seems odd since PHP has almost every single low-level C string
>> function available to it.  You can strspn and strncmp to your heart's
>> content in PHP.  Pretty much the only ones missing are strcat and strcpy
>> but, surely, they can't be why you prefer C.
>>
>> A PHP translation of C string handling would inevitably be simpler since
>> there would be no need manage the storage.  That's the biggest advantage
>> in my opinion, even if never used any of PHP's more complex string
>> manipulation.
>
> white program the reads a text file and swaps every pair of lines and writes
> a new file.
>
> so
>
> one
> two
> three
> four
>
>
> becomes
>
>
> two
> one
> four
> three
>
>
>
>
>
> design it to work  on any text file.
>
>
>
>
> including files with lines larger than  RAM + swap.
>
>
>
>
> if it must work, it's easier in C.
>
>

Read 2 lines, swap, write 2 lines to output file, rinse & repeat, what's 
the big deal?  (Maybe I'm not getting it, I *am* feeling kind of stupid 
this morning.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13729

On 15/05/14 17:07, crankypuss wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 06:34 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> On 2014-05-14, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 13/05/14 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
>>>>> around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Non-issues in PHP.
>>>>>
>>>> string handling is the chief reason I prefer C..
>>>
>>> That seems odd since PHP has almost every single low-level C string
>>> function available to it.  You can strspn and strncmp to your heart's
>>> content in PHP.  Pretty much the only ones missing are strcat and strcpy
>>> but, surely, they can't be why you prefer C.
>>>
>>> A PHP translation of C string handling would inevitably be simpler since
>>> there would be no need manage the storage.  That's the biggest advantage
>>> in my opinion, even if never used any of PHP's more complex string
>>> manipulation.
>>
>> white program the reads a text file and swaps every pair of lines and
>> writes
>> a new file.
>>
>> so
>>
>> one
>> two
>> three
>> four
>>
>>
>> becomes
>>
>>
>> two
>> one
>> four
>> three
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> design it to work  on any text file.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> including files with lines larger than  RAM + swap.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> if it must work, it's easier in C.
>>
>>
>
> Read 2 lines, swap, write 2 lines to output file, rinse & repeat, what's
> the big deal?  (Maybe I'm not getting it, I *am* feeling kind of stupid
> this morning.)

its where you put the lines that wont fit in even virtual memory..


And I think he is making a point.

When the standard tools and assumptions of the language let you down, C 
will get you the solution where PHP will not.



-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13732

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 15/05/14 17:07, crankypuss wrote:
>
>> Read 2 lines, swap, write 2 lines to output file, rinse & repeat, what's
>> the big deal?  (Maybe I'm not getting it, I *am* feeling kind of stupid
>> this morning.)
> 
> its where you put the lines that wont fit in even virtual memory..
> 
> And I think he is making a point.
> 
> When the standard tools and assumptions of the language let you down, C
> will get you the solution where PHP will not.

Besides that this exercise seems very contrieved, you could solve it
with PHP as well.  There's no need to read whole lines; you can even
read a file character by character if necessary.  In this case you'd use
fread(), what's basically the same as stdlib's.

[X post & fup2 comp.lang.php]

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13735

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
<snip>
> When the standard tools and assumptions of the language let you down,
> C will get you the solution where PHP will not.

Lots of people will get this wrong in both languages, and I am not going
to challenge the suggesting that more PHP programmers that C programmers
might get it wrong, but I am not seeing how this example shows that the
solution is simpler in C.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13738

On 16/05/14 02:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> <snip>
>> When the standard tools and assumptions of the language let you down,
>> C will get you the solution where PHP will not.
>
> Lots of people will get this wrong in both languages, and I am not going
> to challenge the suggesting that more PHP programmers that C programmers
> might get it wrong, but I am not seeing how this example shows that the
> solution is simpler in C.
>

I think the things is probably that C programmers are used to dealing 
with more primitive entities than high level programmers are.

PHP is designed to hide  the detail by and large.

And 'do the memory management for you'

Which is fine, if phps way of managing memory doesn't crap out.

I had exactly te same sort of issues with mysql. I was trying to 
normalise a huge database - 2.5M records as a flat spreadsheet type file 
with tons of redundant data in it.

The rather complex SQL query that I end up with still hadnt finished 
after 8 hours, so I write a program in C to utilise simpler mysql 
queries and then step through them and re interrogate the database 
instead of using a nested query structure. And show me what it was doing 
as it did it.

The program took 45 minutes to write, and ran in another hour.

The point is that languages that second guess the way you want to do 
stuff are never as efficient for a single problem as you can be if you 
can decide how yourself.

Most of the time they are mote than good enough: Sometimes they are not.

Its the old 'compiled language versus assembler' argument.

99% of the time is a non issue and you trade the speed of writing code 
for the speed of running, but sometime it tips the other way


-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13743

On 5/16/2014 4:25 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 16/05/14 02:45, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> When the standard tools and assumptions of the language let you down,
>>> C will get you the solution where PHP will not.
>>
>> Lots of people will get this wrong in both languages, and I am not going
>> to challenge the suggesting that more PHP programmers that C programmers
>> might get it wrong, but I am not seeing how this example shows that the
>> solution is simpler in C.
>>
>
> I think the things is probably that C programmers are used to dealing
> with more primitive entities than high level programmers are.
>
> PHP is designed to hide  the detail by and large.
>
> And 'do the memory management for you'
>
> Which is fine, if phps way of managing memory doesn't crap out.
>
> I had exactly te same sort of issues with mysql. I was trying to
> normalise a huge database - 2.5M records as a flat spreadsheet type file
> with tons of redundant data in it.
>
> The rather complex SQL query that I end up with still hadnt finished
> after 8 hours, so I write a program in C to utilise simpler mysql
> queries and then step through them and re interrogate the database
> instead of using a nested query structure. And show me what it was doing
> as it did it.
>
> The program took 45 minutes to write, and ran in another hour.
>

And if you were competent in SQL, you could have written a simple SQL 
statement to do the work in 5 minutes and it would have been done in 15 
minutes.

> The point is that languages that second guess the way you want to do
> stuff are never as efficient for a single problem as you can be if you
> can decide how yourself.
>

Or you are as incompetent in SQL as you are in other languages.

> Most of the time they are mote than good enough: Sometimes they are not.
>
> Its the old 'compiled language versus assembler' argument.
>
> 99% of the time is a non issue and you trade the speed of writing code
> for the speed of running, but sometime it tips the other way
>
>


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13737

On 05/15/2014 10:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/05/14 17:07, crankypuss wrote:
>> On 05/15/2014 06:34 AM, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-14, Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13/05/14 21:35, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
>>>>>> around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Non-issues in PHP.
>>>>>>
>>>>> string handling is the chief reason I prefer C..
>>>>
>>>> That seems odd since PHP has almost every single low-level C string
>>>> function available to it.  You can strspn and strncmp to your heart's
>>>> content in PHP.  Pretty much the only ones missing are strcat and
>>>> strcpy
>>>> but, surely, they can't be why you prefer C.
>>>>
>>>> A PHP translation of C string handling would inevitably be simpler
>>>> since
>>>> there would be no need manage the storage.  That's the biggest
>>>> advantage
>>>> in my opinion, even if never used any of PHP's more complex string
>>>> manipulation.
>>>
>>> white program the reads a text file and swaps every pair of lines and
>>> writes
>>> a new file.
>>>
>>> so
>>>
>>> one
>>> two
>>> three
>>> four
>>>
>>>
>>> becomes
>>>
>>>
>>> two
>>> one
>>> four
>>> three
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> design it to work  on any text file.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> including files with lines larger than  RAM + swap.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> if it must work, it's easier in C.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Read 2 lines, swap, write 2 lines to output file, rinse & repeat, what's
>> the big deal?  (Maybe I'm not getting it, I *am* feeling kind of stupid
>> this morning.)
>
> its where you put the lines that wont fit in even virtual memory..
>
>
> And I think he is making a point.
>
> When the standard tools and assumptions of the language let you down, C
> will get you the solution where PHP will not.

I think he's taken you in with a red herring, but I can't see where it 
matters one way or another.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13733

[X-Post & F'up2 comp.lang.php]

Jasen Betts wrote in alt.os.linux and alt.os.linux.ubuntu:

> white program

Sorry, my programs are mostly in green.  Or blue.  Depends on editor and 
language.

> the reads a text file and swaps every pair of lines and
> writes a new file.
> 
> so
> 
> one
> two
> three
> four
> 
> becomes
> 
> two
> one
> four
> three
> 
> design it to work  on any text file.

Challenge accepted :)

First, read the file's lines into an array:

  $lines = file('file.txt');

Second, swap the array elements:

  $swapped = array_map(
    function ($key) use ($lines) {
      if ($key % 2 === 0)
      {
        return $lines[$key + 1];
      }
   
      return $lines[$key - 1];
    },
    array_keys($lines));

Third, write the result:

  file_put_contents('file-new.txt', join(PHP_EOL, $swapped) . PHP_EOL);

Or, in two statements:

  $lines = file('file.txt');

  file_put_contents(
    'file-new.txt',
    join(
      PHP_EOL,
      array_map(
        function ($key) use ($lines) {
          if ($key % 2 === 0)
          {
            return $lines[$key + 1];
          }
   
          return $lines[$key - 1];
        },
        array_keys($lines)
      )
    ) . PHP_EOL
  );

> including files with lines larger than  RAM + swap.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts>

> if it must work, it's easier in C.

I dare you to beat the above *in ease* with C.

And where did the maniac grow up whose *text* files demanded those 
requirements in the first place?  Why were they not LARTed when there was 
still time?


PointedEars
-- 
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13660

On 05/13/2014 02:35 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <lktn4a$n8q$1@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 13/05/14 17:32, Johnny wrote:
>
>> > Linux Shell Scripting Tutorial v1.05r3
>> > A Beginner's handbook
>> >
>> > http://www.freeos.com/guides/lsst/
>> Prezactly. PHP is optimised for HTML work really.
>
> Who cares.

I'm not sure what the claim that "PHP is optimised for HTML work" is 
supposed to imply, but it works quite well for writing "CLI" 
applications.  I consider it a general-purpose programming language and 
the fact that it fits nicely into the web environment is just an added 
bonus.

>> There are far better languages to do other stuff in, though I have to
>> say I dislike scripting langauges really and prefer to use C wherever
>> possible.

How to say this inoffensively... I find it amusing that you are 
basically saying that there are better languages than PHP but they 
mostly suck in one fashion or another. <G>

(I suppose that I agree with that sentiment fwiw, but I have too large a 
codebase of existing PHP functions and applications to drop it all and 
go start writing C again after not having looked at C or C++ since about 
2000.)

> I can't be arsed to fiddle around with C these days. Too much faffing
> around with declarations - and no string handling to speak of either.
>
> Non-issues in PHP.

Agree.  I started working in PHP somewhere around 2002.  I chose PHP 
because at the time I needed to build a website and PHP was readily 
available on the hosting system.  That I had a previous experience with 
Rexx and there are many similarities between PHP and Rexx helped make me 
comfortable with PHP, despite the fact that in some ways PHP is "a bit 
less than pretty".  By the time that I shut down the business that 
necessitated the website, and shortly after that walked away from 
Windows to begin using linux, I had accumulated a sizable library of 
functions and application-components written in PHP.

When I took a look at the level of crudity implemented in the "default" 
linux scripting language and found that a proper shebang will allow one 
to use PHP for CLI applications, using my existing codebase for "linux 
scripting" became a done deal.

I find myself somewhat shocked at the level of hidebound conformity that 
appears to exist in the linux community.  There is so much that can be 
done with PHP that bash really can't compete unless you set the rules up 
to favor it heavily.  The default linux scripting language is, however, 
deeply embedded in many aspects of every linux distro I've come across, 
so I can understand to a certain degree the desire to avoid looking at 
anything better.

Still, since I can use PHP as my own linux scripting language, and use 
it to write fullblown applications, and have a bunch of PHP code that 
works fairly decently, I continue in that direction.

Apparently without much company, as I read the replies here. <g>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13663

On 14/05/14 09:36, crankypuss wrote:
> Still, since I can use PHP as my own linux scripting language, and use
> it to write fullblown applications, and have a bunch of PHP code that
> works fairly decently, I continue in that direction.
>
> Apparently without much company, as I read the replies here. <g>

If the first language you learnt in Linux was PHP, then you are likely 
to actually be more faimliar in that environment.

MOST linux scripts are not shell these days. python and perl are more 
common, which means you have to carry the overheadf of all THOSE 
libraries as well.

I cam me to UNIX when there was only shell or C. or AWK :-)


Since I was at that time a full time C programmer, I looked askance at 
people constructing massive shell scripts that took enormous amounts of 
CPU to run and were extremely hard to maintain. I generally found that 
beyond the more simple, C was in fact faster to write and easier to 
maintain and ran 100-1000 time faster.


PHP is something I use simply because it is a doddle to integrate with 
websites. Nevertheless I think its a pretty poor language.

I never use it outside a web context because frankly C is to my mind 
better, and neater and more in line with the way the operating system is 
itself constructed.

Having got used to dong my own string manipulations, my own memory 
management and my own library construction over many years of writing 
low level code for non UNIX systems in C, the advantages if knowing 
exactly what you are doing completely outweigh the disadvantages of not 
having it done for you.


The context and scope of my variables are what I declare them to be, not 
randomly what the PHP designer thought would be handy.

MY variables are static or stack based ad dont need memory management, 
and if  I do use malloc() I know how to free() and when to do it.

If I want the third character out if the string str, its simply str[2];

I don't need to invoke a PHP function to get (a copy of) it.

And if it happens to be a hexadecimal code, I dont need to think about 
whether or not its ascii, UTF or an arbitrary bit pattern. It is after 
all 'just a byte'

This isn't in the end anything more than saying that what you understand 
best is often the best for you.

Accept its a personal thing, and don't try to justify it in objective 
terms, when its really subjective.



-- 
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to 
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the 
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are 
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a 
diminishing number of producers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13671

On 05/14/2014 03:09 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 14/05/14 09:36, crankypuss wrote:
>> Still, since I can use PHP as my own linux scripting language, and use
>> it to write fullblown applications, and have a bunch of PHP code that
>> works fairly decently, I continue in that direction.
>>
>> Apparently without much company, as I read the replies here. <g>
>
> If the first language you learnt in Linux was PHP, then you are likely
> to actually be more faimliar in that environment.
>
> MOST linux scripts are not shell these days. python and perl are more
> common, which means you have to carry the overheadf of all THOSE
> libraries as well.
>
> I cam me to UNIX when there was only shell or C. or AWK :-)
>
>
> Since I was at that time a full time C programmer, I looked askance at
> people constructing massive shell scripts that took enormous amounts of
> CPU to run and were extremely hard to maintain. I generally found that
> beyond the more simple, C was in fact faster to write and easier to
> maintain and ran 100-1000 time faster.
>
>
> PHP is something I use simply because it is a doddle to integrate with
> websites. Nevertheless I think its a pretty poor language.
>
> I never use it outside a web context because frankly C is to my mind
> better, and neater and more in line with the way the operating system is
> itself constructed.
>
> Having got used to dong my own string manipulations, my own memory
> management and my own library construction over many years of writing
> low level code for non UNIX systems in C, the advantages if knowing
> exactly what you are doing completely outweigh the disadvantages of not
> having it done for you.
>
>
> The context and scope of my variables are what I declare them to be, not
> randomly what the PHP designer thought would be handy.
>
> MY variables are static or stack based ad dont need memory management,
> and if  I do use malloc() I know how to free() and when to do it.
>
> If I want the third character out if the string str, its simply str[2];
>
> I don't need to invoke a PHP function to get (a copy of) it.
>
> And if it happens to be a hexadecimal code, I dont need to think about
> whether or not its ascii, UTF or an arbitrary bit pattern. It is after
> all 'just a byte'
>
> This isn't in the end anything more than saying that what you understand
> best is often the best for you.
>
> Accept its a personal thing, and don't try to justify it in objective
> terms, when its really subjective.

I can't find anything in your post to take issue with, oh my! <g>

Still, I don't agree with the bottom line implied, perhaps because 
rather than being a programmer in the sense that I choose and use the 
best tools available, I tend to build tools that include the features 
that I find most useful.  I don't love every aspect of PHP, but it has 
two qualities that I value highly: the code that I need can be 
implemented in PHP, and PHP is sufficiently powerful to allow something 
better to be constructed by using it as a bootstrap.

Frankly I have yet to find *any* programming language that I think is 
"better" in an overall sense than PDP-11 assembler, but I do have some 
ideas about how to make one.

The main reason I posed the question that is the subject of this thread 
is that I'm wondering if it would be worth the trouble involved to share 
some of the applications that I've been developing, and so far it 
appears that there simply isn't any interest in anything PHP-based 
because PHP is "icky".

If that's the case it'll save me some effort.  I don't have unlimited 
time for user handholding, and if nobody much uses PHP for anything but 
stuffing a few mySQL queries into their websites, that implies that 
nobody much would be interested in taking care of themselves, QED 
excessive handholding required.  So it goes, eh?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13647

On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:09:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 13/05/14 17:32, Johnny wrote:
>> On 05/13/2014 11:05 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2014 09:00 AM, Collin Pruitt wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2014 4:17 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>>>>> What kinds of linux scripts do you write in PHP?  Are they
>>>>> applications, utilities, other?  Are they command-line or 
>>>>> do they have fullscreen interfaces?
>>>>
>>>> I've never used PHP for actual scripting outside of CGI. If I have to
>>>> write a script, I almost always use either Perl or shell script.
>>>
>>> When you write a "script", what is it?  Command-line only, fullscreen
>>> interface, simple abbreviation of some common task, fullblown
>>> applications, what?
>>
>> Linux Shell Scripting Tutorial v1.05r3
>> A Beginner's handbook
>>
>> http://www.freeos.com/guides/lsst/
> Prezactly. PHP is optimised for HTML work really.
>
> There are far better languages to do other stuff in, though I have to 
> say I dislike scripting langauges really and prefer to use C wherever 
> possible.
>
> If I HAD to pick an interpreted GP language it would probably be Python 
> though I have never written a single line of it..

Horses.  Courses.  REXX

Jonesy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13651

Be it known Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> has declared...
> On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:09:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 13/05/14 17:32, Johnny wrote:
>>> On 05/13/2014 11:05 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>>>> On 05/13/2014 09:00 AM, Collin Pruitt wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2014 4:17 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>>>>>> What kinds of linux scripts do you write in PHP?  Are they
>>>>>> applications, utilities, other?  Are they command-line or 
>>>>>> do they have fullscreen interfaces?
>>>>>
>>>>> I've never used PHP for actual scripting outside of CGI. If I have to
>>>>> write a script, I almost always use either Perl or shell script.
>>>>
>>>> When you write a "script", what is it?  Command-line only, fullscreen
>>>> interface, simple abbreviation of some common task, fullblown
>>>> applications, what?
>>>
>>> Linux Shell Scripting Tutorial v1.05r3
>>> A Beginner's handbook
>>>
>>> http://www.freeos.com/guides/lsst/
>> Prezactly. PHP is optimised for HTML work really.
>>
>> There are far better languages to do other stuff in, though I have to 
>> say I dislike scripting langauges really and prefer to use C wherever 
>> possible.
>>
>> If I HAD to pick an interpreted GP language it would probably be Python 
>> though I have never written a single line of it..

> Horses.  Courses.  REXX

In VM/CMS and MVS I use REXX and for Linux I prefer shell
scripting or perl. As is indicated by its name (a recursive
acronym - PHP Hypertext Preprocessor) it's intended use is web
pages.

Mike "mostly hand signals for the dog" Yetto
-- 
"Give a man a fish, and you`ll feed him for a day. Teach a man to
fish, and he`ll buy a funny hat. Talk to a hungry man about fish,
and you`re a consultant."
 - Scott Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13667

On 05/13/2014 05:02 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
> Be it known Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> has declared...
>> On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:09:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 13/05/14 17:32, Johnny wrote:
>>>> On 05/13/2014 11:05 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>>>>> On 05/13/2014 09:00 AM, Collin Pruitt wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2014 4:17 AM, crankypuss wrote:
>>>>>>> What kinds of linux scripts do you write in PHP?  Are they
>>>>>>> applications, utilities, other?  Are they command-line or
>>>>>>> do they have fullscreen interfaces?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never used PHP for actual scripting outside of CGI. If I have to
>>>>>> write a script, I almost always use either Perl or shell script.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you write a "script", what is it?  Command-line only, fullscreen
>>>>> interface, simple abbreviation of some common task, fullblown
>>>>> applications, what?
>>>>
>>>> Linux Shell Scripting Tutorial v1.05r3
>>>> A Beginner's handbook
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freeos.com/guides/lsst/
>>> Prezactly. PHP is optimised for HTML work really.
>>>
>>> There are far better languages to do other stuff in, though I have to
>>> say I dislike scripting langauges really and prefer to use C wherever
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> If I HAD to pick an interpreted GP language it would probably be Python
>>> though I have never written a single line of it..
>
>> Horses.  Courses.  REXX
>
> In VM/CMS and MVS I use REXX and for Linux I prefer shell
> scripting or perl. As is indicated by its name (a recursive
> acronym - PHP Hypertext Preprocessor) it's intended use is web
> pages.
>
> Mike "mostly hand signals for the dog" Yetto
>

PHP can validly be used for whatever one can use it for, just like any 
other programming tool.

HOWEVER.  Note that Rexx is the VM/CMS "system product interpreter" (or 
at least that's what they used to call it).  Something of equal or 
greater capability might someday become the "linux system interpreter", 
and would that be a bad thing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13690

Be it known crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> has declared...
> On 05/13/2014 05:02 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
>> Be it known Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> has declared...
>>> Horses.  Courses.  REXX
>>
>> In VM/CMS and MVS I use REXX and for Linux I prefer shell
>> scripting or perl. As is indicated by its name (a recursive
>> acronym - PHP Hypertext Preprocessor) it's intended use is web
>> pages.
>>
>> Mike "mostly hand signals for the dog" Yetto
>>

> PHP can validly be used for whatever one can use it for, just like any 
> other programming tool.

> HOWEVER.  Note that Rexx is the VM/CMS "system product interpreter" (or 
> at least that's what they used to call it).  Something of equal or 
> greater capability might someday become the "linux system interpreter", 
> and would that be a bad thing?

It would be a neutral thing if it could be ignored, bad if
enforced.

Mike "would enforcement even be possible?" Yetto
-- 
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if
there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than
that of blindfolded fear."
 - Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13703

On 5/14/2014 5:23 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
> Be it known crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> has declared...
>> On 05/13/2014 05:02 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
>>> Be it known Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> has declared...
>>>> Horses.  Courses.  REXX
>>>
>>> In VM/CMS and MVS I use REXX and for Linux I prefer shell
>>> scripting or perl. As is indicated by its name (a recursive
>>> acronym - PHP Hypertext Preprocessor) it's intended use is web
>>> pages.
>>>
>>> Mike "mostly hand signals for the dog" Yetto
>>>
>
>> PHP can validly be used for whatever one can use it for, just like any
>> other programming tool.
>
>> HOWEVER.  Note that Rexx is the VM/CMS "system product interpreter" (or
>> at least that's what they used to call it).  Something of equal or
>> greater capability might someday become the "linux system interpreter",
>> and would that be a bad thing?
>
> It would be a neutral thing if it could be ignored, bad if
> enforced.
>
> Mike "would enforcement even be possible?" Yetto
>

REXX is a good scripting language for many things.  I wrote a lot of 
REXX scripts when I was working for IBM.  Much easier than doing the 
same thing in compiled languages such as C.

Even after leaving IBM I used it quite extensively on OS/2.  But it is 
one of the many languages I unfortunately have not kept up on over the 
years.


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13708

On 05/14/2014 03:23 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
> Be it known crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> has declared...
>> On 05/13/2014 05:02 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
>>> Be it known Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> has declared...
>>>> Horses.  Courses.  REXX
>>>
>>> In VM/CMS and MVS I use REXX and for Linux I prefer shell
>>> scripting or perl. As is indicated by its name (a recursive
>>> acronym - PHP Hypertext Preprocessor) it's intended use is web
>>> pages.
>>>
>>> Mike "mostly hand signals for the dog" Yetto
>>>
>
>> PHP can validly be used for whatever one can use it for, just like any
>> other programming tool.
>
>> HOWEVER.  Note that Rexx is the VM/CMS "system product interpreter" (or
>> at least that's what they used to call it).  Something of equal or
>> greater capability might someday become the "linux system interpreter",
>> and would that be a bad thing?
>
> It would be a neutral thing if it could be ignored, bad if
> enforced.
>
> Mike "would enforcement even be possible?" Yetto
>

You mean, kind of like bash is enforced, by being embedded nearly 
everywhere from the init system upward?

The nice thing about FOSS is that nothing can truly be enforced when the 
source code is available, it can only be enforced within particular 
implementations that one can choose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13710

crankypuss wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 05/14/2014 03:23 PM, Mike Yetto wrote:
>
>> It would be a neutral thing if it could be ignored, bad if
>> enforced.
>>
>> Mike "would enforcement even be possible?" Yetto
>
> You mean, kind of like bash is enforced, by being embedded nearly 
> everywhere from the init system upward?

It is? I believe Debian switched to dash for the init system a long time
ago.

And you can obviously install any shell you want.  Though it is kind of
difficult to avoid adding bashisms to your scripts.  :-)

> The nice thing about FOSS is that nothing can truly be enforced when the 
> source code is available, it can only be enforced within particular 
> implementations that one can choose.


-- 
Ray's Rule of Precision:
	Measure with a micrometer.  Mark with chalk.  Cut with an axe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php

csiph-web