5 ms·

Another "why" that was left out in the article, something that is of great concern to a lot of projects, is computational performance. A whole lot of good can b

Another "why" that was left out in the article, something that is of great concern to a lot of projects, is computational performance. A whole lot of good can be said about both Python and Ruby, but "swift performer" is definitely not one of those things.

troels 16y ago
Python is generally a bit faster than PHP though, and while Ruby is dog slow, both languages are in the heavy end for their class. Ref: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php?gcc=on&python3=on&php=on&ruby=on&calc=chart http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-lang...
- towelrod 16y ago
  That kind of performance just doesn't matter that much though. I recently benchmarked my fairly standard Rails app on 1.8.7 vs. 1.9.2, and the numbers for delivering a page are basically the same. 1.9.2 is much faster for calculating Fibonacci numbers, sure, but since webapps are mostly IO bound it just doesn't matter.
  - troels 16y ago
    Oh - I fully agree. For most situations, raw computation is irrelevant. But even in the cases where it matters, PHP isn't remarkably faster than its closest alternatives.
  - igouy 16y ago
    Who's shown Fib? If "it just doesn't matter" then what's the point of 1.9.2 performance improvement?
    - towelrod 16y ago
      There's not much of a point -- that's why 1.8.7 is still around, and why uptake on 1.9.2 has been so slow. If 1.9.2 really made every HTTP request go 2x as fast, don't you think every Ruby shop would have switched to 1.9.2 at least a year ago?
- igouy 16y ago
  Strangely you show Ruby 1.8.7 but not Ruby 1.9 or JRuby ;-) http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php?python=on&python3=on&jruby=on&yarv=on&php=on&ruby=on&calc=chart http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-lang...
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Let's be honest. When people "use Ruby", it's very unlikely that they are using JRuby or Ruby 1.9. Similarly, when people "use Python", they are using 2.7 or lower, not 3.1. The reason is because the older versions of each are the ones with the libraries. But interestingly, this is not the case with Perl, as new releases have 99% backcompat with old releases. Even old code that uses a new piece of syntax (like "say" from 5.10) in the old way continues to work!
    - igouy 16y ago
      Let's be honest. When people "use Ruby" (or Python) you really don't know what proportion of them are using which version. The reason is you have no data. But interestingly, this is also the case with Perl - you have no data.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        I have a lot of data: http://stats.cpantesters.org/pmatrix-month.html http://stats.cpantesters.org/pmatrix-month.html
        igouy 16y ago
        You might as well have linked to NCAA Basketball scores! Let's be honest. When people "use Ruby" (or Python) you really don't know what proportion of them are using which version. And the data you have a lot of does not help with that. Nor does the data you have a lot of tell us what proportion of Perl users use which version of Perl.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
riffraff 16y ago
careful though, if you take into account equivalent abstractions (rails vs symfony vs django) this argument may toggle against php.
- robryan 16y ago
  PHP isn't to hard to do away with the abstraction though, or just go with some lightweight helper libraries.
  - troels 16y ago
    I have to agree. Bolting a full stack framework on top of PHP just doesn't appeal much to me. If you want that kind of organisation in your application, I would much prefer something other than PHP. PHP excels at keeping complexity down. If you don't work within that paradigm, then Python or Ruby are probably better alternatives.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      Just so you know: Ruby and Python also have 'no framework' ways of making apps, just like PHP does. The culture has just decided that at least using a little bit (even if it's only 1500 lines) of framework is worth it.
      - robryan 16y ago
        From the outside looking in the vast majority of people I know making web apps in ruby are doing so with rails. For better or for worse there is that full blow framework culture there that hasn't been replicated in PHP either due to fragmentation or the amount of functions built directly in the language.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        True. I wouldn't say that it's because of the number of things built into the language though, it's more that Rubyists tend to care about software engineering, and so they'd rather do something the right way with full tooling than just throw up one page spaghetti scripts.

troels 16y ago

Python is generally a bit faster than PHP though, and while Ruby is dog slow, both languages are in the heavy end for their class. Ref: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php?gcc=on&python3=on&php=on&ruby=on&calc=chart http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-lang...

towelrod 16y ago
That kind of performance just doesn't matter that much though. I recently benchmarked my fairly standard Rails app on 1.8.7 vs. 1.9.2, and the numbers for delivering a page are basically the same. 1.9.2 is much faster for calculating Fibonacci numbers, sure, but since webapps are mostly IO bound it just doesn't matter.
- troels 16y ago
  Oh - I fully agree. For most situations, raw computation is irrelevant. But even in the cases where it matters, PHP isn't remarkably faster than its closest alternatives.
- igouy 16y ago
  Who's shown Fib? If "it just doesn't matter" then what's the point of 1.9.2 performance improvement?
  - towelrod 16y ago
    There's not much of a point -- that's why 1.8.7 is still around, and why uptake on 1.9.2 has been so slow. If 1.9.2 really made every HTTP request go 2x as fast, don't you think every Ruby shop would have switched to 1.9.2 at least a year ago?
igouy 16y ago
Strangely you show Ruby 1.8.7 but not Ruby 1.9 or JRuby ;-) http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php?python=on&python3=on&jruby=on&yarv=on&php=on&ruby=on&calc=chart http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-lang...
- jrockway 16y ago
  Let's be honest. When people "use Ruby", it's very unlikely that they are using JRuby or Ruby 1.9. Similarly, when people "use Python", they are using 2.7 or lower, not 3.1. The reason is because the older versions of each are the ones with the libraries. But interestingly, this is not the case with Perl, as new releases have 99% backcompat with old releases. Even old code that uses a new piece of syntax (like "say" from 5.10) in the old way continues to work!
  - igouy 16y ago
    Let's be honest. When people "use Ruby" (or Python) you really don't know what proportion of them are using which version. The reason is you have no data. But interestingly, this is also the case with Perl - you have no data.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      I have a lot of data: http://stats.cpantesters.org/pmatrix-month.html http://stats.cpantesters.org/pmatrix-month.html
      - igouy 16y ago
        You might as well have linked to NCAA Basketball scores! Let's be honest. When people "use Ruby" (or Python) you really don't know what proportion of them are using which version. And the data you have a lot of does not help with that. Nor does the data you have a lot of tell us what proportion of Perl users use which version of Perl.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago

riffraff 16y ago

careful though, if you take into account equivalent abstractions (rails vs symfony vs django) this argument may toggle against php.

robryan 16y ago
PHP isn't to hard to do away with the abstraction though, or just go with some lightweight helper libraries.
- troels 16y ago
  I have to agree. Bolting a full stack framework on top of PHP just doesn't appeal much to me. If you want that kind of organisation in your application, I would much prefer something other than PHP. PHP excels at keeping complexity down. If you don't work within that paradigm, then Python or Ruby are probably better alternatives.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Just so you know: Ruby and Python also have 'no framework' ways of making apps, just like PHP does. The culture has just decided that at least using a little bit (even if it's only 1500 lines) of framework is worth it.
    - robryan 16y ago
      From the outside looking in the vast majority of people I know making web apps in ruby are doing so with rails. For better or for worse there is that full blow framework culture there that hasn't been replicated in PHP either due to fragmentation or the amount of functions built directly in the language.
      - steveklabnik 16y ago
        True. I wouldn't say that it's because of the number of things built into the language though, it's more that Rubyists tend to care about software engineering, and so they'd rather do something the right way with full tooling than just throw up one page spaghetti scripts.