Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:29:27 +0100
From: Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.programming
Subject: Re: Perl or PHP?
References: <l9mruq$pn8$1@speranza.aioe.org> <db93pa-d0p.ln1@luuk.invalid.lan> <l9mt81$sqg$1@speranza.aioe.org> <98a3pa-0sq.ln1@luuk.invalid.lan> <v2Ivu.1028$v04.766@fx28.am4>
In-Reply-To: <v2Ivu.1028$v04.766@fx28.am4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <78v5pa-34i.ln1@luuk.invalid.lan>
Lines: 56
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:980:9089:1:fca7:d565:ab76:dd63
X-Trace: 1388334601 news.xs4all.nl 2862 [2001:980:9089:1:fca7:d565:ab76:dd63]:59822
X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:4063

On 28-12-2013 23:13, BartC wrote:
> "Luuk" <luuk@invalid.lan> wrote in message
> news:98a3pa-0sq.ln1@luuk.invalid.lan...
>> On 28-12-2013 17:11, Victor Porton wrote:
>
>>> Could you disclose the content of files test.pl and test.php?
>>>
>>>> But the question of course is, what are your comparing?
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>
>>   1 #!/usr/bin/perl
>>   2
>>   3 for ($count = 1000; $count >= 1; $count--) {
>>   4                 print "$count ";
>>   5                  }
>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>   1 #!/usr/bin/php
>>   2
>>   3 <?php
>>   4 for ($f=1000; $f>=1; $f--)
>>   5         echo "$f ";
>
> So you're mainly testing I/O rather than the language: which depends on the
> commands that are used for output in the language, how they are
> implemented,
> how the console is driven, the console implementation code, the kind of
> display, etc.
>
> Changing your tests a little so that the loops increment a variable, and
> putting the output at the end, makes PHP twice as fast as Perl (on the same
> setup which had PHP seven times slower than Perl using your tests.) Eg:
>
> $a=0;
> for ($count = 10000000; $count >= 1; $count--) {
>                 $a=$a+1;
> etc.
>
> Still a lousy benchmark, but at least it avoids I/O which is highly
> misleading.
>
>

thats why i said:
what are your comparing?

;-)

The starting point of this thread was wrong.

OP should have investigated the strong, an weak points of both choices, 
in stead of yust focussing on 'performance'