3 ms·

Woah. Do you know what Google, youtube, and Nasa use it for? Not for powering their applications. You might as well say Google and youtube use bash scripting,

by runT1ME 16y ago

Woah. Do you know what Google, youtube, and Nasa use it for? Not for powering their applications. You might as well say Google and youtube use bash scripting, it'd be just as accurate. And Reddit is having a ton of scaling problems. The thing can't even support multicore . I'ts 2010 and you're telling me a langauge that can't handle multicore properly scales? Oh. and don't mistake my python smack talk for defending PHP. PHP is the devil. I'm just not a fan of python.

Daishiman 16y ago
"Python is fast enough for our site and allows us to produce maintainable features in record times, with a minimum of developers," said Cuong Do, Software Architect, YouTube.com. "Python enabled us to create EVE Online, a massive multiplayer game, in record time. The EVE Online server cluster runs over 50,000 simultaneous players in a shared space simulation, most of which is created in Python. The flexibilities of Python have enabled us to quickly improve the game experience based on player feedback" said Hilmar Veigar Petursson of CCP Games. So, yeah, you're completely wrong on all counts. And if you think multicore is the only way to do multiprocessing, you should probably go back to Operating Systems 101, or study the actual reasons why Python is or is not good for multiprocessing. The correct answer would have been the GIL and multiprocessing limited only to blocking IO calls. At any rate, if you had actually used this for a real scaling problem, you would have realized that you spend 95% of your time waiting for IO on most web processes, so the choice of language is almost irrelevant so long as RAM usage doesn't get exceedingly high.
- runT1ME 16y ago
  Wow, you're talking about Stackless, something a lot different. >he correct answer would have been the GIL and multiprocessing limited only to blocking IO calls. I'm familiar with the GIL, however I don't think you are. > you would have realized that you spend 95% of your time waiting for IO on most web processes hahahaha. This is funny, because I know why you think this. See, because Python doesn't do multi threading, you spawn up a seperate process for every web hit. Then of course you have to hit your cache servers or DB, hence waiting on IO. See, when you graduate to big kid programming you'll realize that 1997 called and they want their architecture back, and instead it's much better to have a mature platform that handle multiple concurrent web requests from one VM, hence they can share a cache, so no, I don't work on apps that spend 95% of the time in IO because if that is the case you're doing it wrong.
  - Daishiman 16y ago
    Evidently you haven't read or used WSGI, Tornado, or Twisted in any significant form. So Python sucks at multithreading, which doesn't mean that there aren't some very good workarounds, and that multiprocessing works as good as any other place. Btw, if you HAD tried to use Python on any significant way, you would have known that WSGI on Apache recycles the VM for multiple requests, which is the reason why it's suggested to do static file serving outside of Apache within the same server. And, oh yeah, I have yet to hear from anyone except people doing CPU-intensive processing have the programming language be the bottleneck. Congratulations if your system is CPU or network-limited, in which case I'd hope that you're writing something in a lower-level language to handle the situation, but in 99% of large site installations, even if you cache all your IO, it's still going to be the big bottleneck of your system. Seriously, opening a remote socket and sending shit through it is almost always a bigger issue than pushing HTML. Finally, it still doesn't change the fact that some of the biggest web sites are running Python in the back end and they couldn't be happier.

by runT1ME 16y ago

Daishiman 16y ago

"Python is fast enough for our site and allows us to produce maintainable features in record times, with a minimum of developers," said Cuong Do, Software Architect, YouTube.com. "Python enabled us to create EVE Online, a massive multiplayer game, in record time. The EVE Online server cluster runs over 50,000 simultaneous players in a shared space simulation, most of which is created in Python. The flexibilities of Python have enabled us to quickly improve the game experience based on player feedback" said Hilmar Veigar Petursson of CCP Games. So, yeah, you're completely wrong on all counts. And if you think multicore is the only way to do multiprocessing, you should probably go back to Operating Systems 101, or study the actual reasons why Python is or is not good for multiprocessing. The correct answer would have been the GIL and multiprocessing limited only to blocking IO calls. At any rate, if you had actually used this for a real scaling problem, you would have realized that you spend 95% of your time waiting for IO on most web processes, so the choice of language is almost irrelevant so long as RAM usage doesn't get exceedingly high.

runT1ME 16y ago
Wow, you're talking about Stackless, something a lot different. >he correct answer would have been the GIL and multiprocessing limited only to blocking IO calls. I'm familiar with the GIL, however I don't think you are. > you would have realized that you spend 95% of your time waiting for IO on most web processes hahahaha. This is funny, because I know why you think this. See, because Python doesn't do multi threading, you spawn up a seperate process for every web hit. Then of course you have to hit your cache servers or DB, hence waiting on IO. See, when you graduate to big kid programming you'll realize that 1997 called and they want their architecture back, and instead it's much better to have a mature platform that handle multiple concurrent web requests from one VM, hence they can share a cache, so no, I don't work on apps that spend 95% of the time in IO because if that is the case you're doing it wrong.
- Daishiman 16y ago
  Evidently you haven't read or used WSGI, Tornado, or Twisted in any significant form. So Python sucks at multithreading, which doesn't mean that there aren't some very good workarounds, and that multiprocessing works as good as any other place. Btw, if you HAD tried to use Python on any significant way, you would have known that WSGI on Apache recycles the VM for multiple requests, which is the reason why it's suggested to do static file serving outside of Apache within the same server. And, oh yeah, I have yet to hear from anyone except people doing CPU-intensive processing have the programming language be the bottleneck. Congratulations if your system is CPU or network-limited, in which case I'd hope that you're writing something in a lower-level language to handle the situation, but in 99% of large site installations, even if you cache all your IO, it's still going to be the big bottleneck of your system. Seriously, opening a remote socket and sending shit through it is almost always a bigger issue than pushing HTML. Finally, it still doesn't change the fact that some of the biggest web sites are running Python in the back end and they couldn't be happier.