Python v PHP: fair comparison?

[John Bokma]

Fredrik Lundh ha escrito:


I know, but would you consider a python cgi application a good
competence against php?

php running as cgi you mean.

 

[walterbyrd]

Nope. It disproves your assertion that "certainly all of the lower
priced hosters" use Apache 1.3.

Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?

 

[James Cunningham]

Okay, where can I get Python and Apache 2.X for $10 a year?

Frankly, I can't find *anybody* who advertises hosting for <= $10 a
year - the cheapeast I can find is $18 - and such a plan would be too
limited for me to consider anyway.

But with easily-available promotional codes, you can pay less than that
at least for Dreamhost, which offers Apache 2.x and Python 2.4. I
consider it low-cost hosting, but YMMV.

Best
James

 

[John Bokma]

Frankly, I can't find *anybody* who advertises hosting for <= $10 a
year - the cheapeast I can find is $18 - and such a plan would be too
limited for me to consider anyway.

hostingforabuck.com : $12/year, without domain name of course. Not sure on
Apache version or Python, but the guy who runs it is extremely helpful and
fast.

 

[Paul Boddie]

php running as cgi you mean.

Perhaps not: he's referring to deployment on really cheap hosting
solutions which might support mod_php but wouldn't support anything
better than CGI for Python software. The suitability of mod_php and the
supposed unsuitability of mod_python for commodity hosting did come up
on comp.lang.python some time ago, a while before certain other trends,
and has seemingly been discussed every year for several years:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.python/msg/ebf390af4ed6e92e

"Thus, for mod_python hosting to be reliable, you have to give each
user their own instance of the Apache server (proxied through a central
instance of Apache). This might, in fact, no longer be needed with the
latest mod_python, but I leave that to the mod_python experts in this
newsgroup to expound upon if so." (To which there was no response.)

This discussion only differs from those previous discussions [1] in the
sense that better hosting is now available for less, although you can't
get a virtual server for $1/month unless you have some contacts in the
business.

Paul

[1] http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?oi=djq&as_q=mod_python+PHP+hosting

 

[sjdevnull]

Cameron Laird ha escrito:

OK. But since when has python been considered a viable alternative for
web development?
As a generalp purpose language, it's older.
But as a web development language, it's olnly when people started to
look for the "rails killer" and many python alternatives started to
come up (although Django has been in development for a long time before
all this hype).

Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while, and I know that
mod_python/httpdapy goes back at least to 1998 (and Python CGI predates
that significantly).

 

[=?iso-8859-1?q?Luis_M._Gonz=E1lez?=]

(e-mail address removed) ha escrito:

Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while, and I know that
mod_python/httpdapy goes back at least to 1998 (and Python CGI predates
that significantly).

Do not forget the subject of this thread.
Nobody is criticizing python here. I am a "believer"!
We are talking about important details that matter when choosing a
language, and specially when choosing one for web development.
I'm sure Yahoo, Google and other companies can afford having
knowledgeable people, hardware and resources to use python they way
they like.
The problem is (or was) for mere mortals trying to create a web site on
shared hostings.

We all know that mod_python has its issues, and still is not a common
or affordable feature in the vast mayority of web hosts. And prior to
that, you only had cgi or other rather unknown solutions.
mod_php had a clear advantage here. Perhaps not as a language but as an
ubiquitous and cheap alternative.

In the last months (and I said "months" not years) the situation
improved a lot, but still it is a fair to make a comparison.
My opinion is that python, as a language, is by far a much better
alternative for any use.
But php, as a platform, still has a many advantages, being availability
the main one.

Luis

 

[Fredrik Lundh]

Huh? I've been doing paid python web work since 2000. I'm fairly sure
that Yahoo! groups predates that by a while

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EGroups

</F>

 

[Paul Boddie]

Luis M. González skrev:

[...]

The problem is (or was) for mere mortals trying to create a web site on
shared hostings.

Yes, that was the "barrier to entry" observation, but you have to
implicitly narrow the discussion to just that if you want statements
like the one above to stand. I agree with what you're saying in the
context of "mere mortals", but for businesses and other organisations,
who have more control over hosting infrastructure, Python has been
viable for a long time.

We all know that mod_python has its issues, and still is not a common
or affordable feature in the vast mayority of web hosts. And prior to
that, you only had cgi or other rather unknown solutions.

True. This kind of thing is what put the brakes on the adoption of
Webware and similar technologies where you have a long-running process
alongside the Web server processes: something a lot of commodity
hosting companies aren't interested in managing. I imagine that
mod_python could have been an acceptable vehicle for higher performance
Python hosting, given that you could just add it to the server program,
but the necessary isolation mechanisms were never developed. (And in
this context, it's interesting that the principal author of mod_python
now runs a hosting operation based on Linux-VServer technologies.)

mod_php had a clear advantage here. Perhaps not as a language but as an
ubiquitous and cheap alternative.
Agreed.

In the last months (and I said "months" not years) the situation
improved a lot, but still it is a fair to make a comparison.

The number of providers willing to run long-running processes alongside
Web server processes has certainly increased, due to an increased
demand for a certain non-Python Web framework whose technical
foundations virtually mandate such an environment. Nevertheless,
WebFaction (as an example of a more flexible provider) has been around
since the start of 2003.

Paul

 

[sjdevnull]

(e-mail address removed) ha escrito:


Do not forget the subject of this thread.
Nobody is criticizing python here. I am a "believer"!

I was responding to the statement "since when has python been
considered a viable alternative for web development".

At any rate, I haven't had any problems finding cheap Python hosts, so
I think that's largely a straw man--there are _more_ PHP hosts out
there, but it's not as though you're limited to only 2-3 Python hosts.
There are plenty to choose from.

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

I appreciate your clarification. I can report back that we
certainly move in different circles; I, for example, knew of
people with multi-million-dollar budgets deciding on Python-
based Web technology for *serious* applications in '96. Ruby

.
.
.
Was Python really *such* big business so long ago? Without put-
ting myself out to look through my notes, and make sure of what I
have permission to disclose, I can point, for instance, to <URL:
http://www.opticality.com/Press/Opticality/LinuxMagazine/view >:
"By October 1998, Pedhazur had invested $750,000" in Digital Cre-
ations, the company behind Python-based Web framework Zope (modulo
a few name changes). That's not the only case. So, yes, I repeat:
Python-based Web business well beyond the scale of "parts we found
in a dumpster" has been going on for a decade.

I'm ready to grant Ruby on Rails has impacted cultural awareness
in a way Python doesn't yet touch. I'm not a good judge of such
matters.