Ruby vs. PHP

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007.

  1. Hello

    My company is trying to get big contract for creating and maintaining
    HUGE website (nation wide portal). We're trying to convince investor
    that Ruby (i don't mean rails) with custom tailored MVC framework is
    best solution, we're going to make prototypes in rails FAST, then port
    heaviest and most frequently used parts to my custom framework, rewrite
    AR into tuned SQL queries etc.

    investor was quite impresed with speed of development but of course
    there's trouble in paradise .. he hired a consultant :/ - this guy AFAIK
    did lot's of work but only in PHP and he is trying to convince investor
    PHP is way to go.

    could you please help me find some benchmarks comparing speed of PHP vs
    Ruby (especially YARV/JRuby, if ound some benchamrks that show Ruby is
    slower in interpreter), mayby comparsions of security(in Rails it's
    preatty imposible to do sql injections if programmer is carefull enought
    to use properly constructed queries).

    also I'm open to any arguments(preferable documented, with showcases,
    and understandable by investor(who never had much expirience with
    computers except for e-mail and www)) that would help convince him that
    ruby is much better then php :)

    and I'm also looking for big sites that adopted ruby / ruby on rails
    (especially with huge number of users / hit's per s)

    Marcin Raczkowski
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Marcin Raczkowski

    Robert Dober Guest

    Robert Dober, Oct 1, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 10/1/07, Marcin Raczkowski <> wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > My company is trying to get big contract for creating and maintaining
    > HUGE website (nation wide portal). We're trying to convince investor
    > that Ruby (i don't mean rails) with custom tailored MVC framework is
    > best solution, we're going to make prototypes in rails FAST, then port
    > heaviest and most frequently used parts to my custom framework, rewrite
    > AR into tuned SQL queries etc.


    Why is this a good idea?

    >
    > investor was quite impresed with speed of development but of course
    > there's trouble in paradise .. he hired a consultant :/ - this guy AFAIK
    > did lot's of work but only in PHP and he is trying to convince investor
    > PHP is way to go.


    PHP beats Rails in certain aspects; for instance if development of the
    site is seasonal in nature, as opposed to continuous, the customer
    is likely to be hiring as they need. The large availability of PHP
    developers plays in its favour.

    > could you please help me find some benchmarks comparing speed of PHP vs
    > Ruby (especially YARV/JRuby, if ound some benchamrks that show Ruby is
    > slower in interpreter), mayby comparsions of security(in Rails it's
    > preatty imposible to do sql injections if programmer is carefull enought
    > to use properly constructed queries).


    Well none of that is true, or really important. Sure its easier to secure Rails.
    But if you are making a large nationwide portal (I am going to assume that
    that means you have high activity) then the performance of your rendering
    component (PHP or Rails) doesn't actually matter.

    PHP isn't exactly assembler speed itself. Ruby is in the same league (slower
    with 1.8, faster with YARV). There is a reason that PHP is a central component
    in a LAMP stack - probably the solution of choice for websites with high user
    load. In principle Ruby can do the same, in practice we have only had
    about 2 years
    as a community to get big Ruby sites up. You also have an equivalent ASP
    stack based on windows components.

    All of these stacks are glued together with languages that are at least an order
    of magnitude slower than Systems languages like Java.

    >
    > also I'm open to any arguments(preferable documented, with showcases,
    > and understandable by investor(who never had much expirience with
    > computers except for e-mail and www)) that would help convince him that
    > ruby is much better then php :)


    There's plenty of sites out there doing pretty heavy stuff with Rails,
    but beyond
    Rails there is not much evidence that shows pure Ruby custom web solutions
    to scale. Rails has a lot of features and best practices built in to
    help it scale.
    In a pure Ruby solution you are committing to re-writing all of that
    from scratch.

    Based on your questions/responses here, I think the consultant is right; that
    PHP is a better solution for the customer.
     
    Richard Conroy, Oct 1, 2007
    #3
  4. Marcin Raczkowski

    John Joyce Guest

    I wouldn't sweat it much.
    Show them good sites built with these things. Explain the reasons you
    use what you use.
    If they hire a consultant who only recommends one technology, then
    he's a shill.
    He could just as easily be an ASP shill or a Java shill or anything
    else.
    Ruby and Rails are still small compared to PHP, but booming and not
    shrinking.

    You might want to show a bit more of the ongoing history of
    insecurity that is a lot more rampant with PHP sites, and even
    recommend a little security through obscurity. (that's what kept VAX
    systems going until HP end-of-lifed the OS)

    But in the end, if you don't get it, chances are they'll go with a
    cheap and mediocre PHP shop. It's a lot like the cheap and mediocre
    Microsoft-based shops. There are lots of them, but there are lots of
    bad ones. Good PHP shops are probably more expensive (and busier)
    than you.

    The truth is, the language used is only one small part of many things
    they should be carefully considering. Server (hardware/software) /
    web hosting can be as/more important. The language really shouldn't
    matter all that much. Google, Yahoo, etc... don't use strictly one
    language or framework in house! A decent programmer / team of
    programmers should be able to select the technology they feel will
    work best for them AND the project together. In some cases Ruby might
    be the wrong choice.

    Everybody and their dog touts themselves as a nationwide high-traffic
    portal site to be, but if that were true or even likely, they
    wouldn't need a consultant, they'd have a CTO of some kind who would
    have already decided these issues. Sounds more like your selling lawn
    care services to a guy from the desert who has only heard of grass
    and is planning to build a golf course.
     
    John Joyce, Oct 1, 2007
    #4
  5. Robert Dober wrote:
    > On 10/1/07, Waleed Harbi <> wrote:
    >> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=ruby&lang2=php

    >
    > This has been discussed a lot on this list, and I believe that a
    > majority of the community is concerning the shootout site a site
    > without any value.
    > For sure I do.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Robert
    >
    >

    i found this one, and also it's interprete ruby not YARV or JRbuy
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Marcin Raczkowski

    mortee Guest

    mortee, Oct 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Richard Conroy wrote:
    > On 10/1/07, Marcin Raczkowski <> wrote:
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> My company is trying to get big contract for creating and maintaining
    >> HUGE website (nation wide portal). We're trying to convince investor
    >> that Ruby (i don't mean rails) with custom tailored MVC framework is
    >> best solution, we're going to make prototypes in rails FAST, then port
    >> heaviest and most frequently used parts to my custom framework, rewrite
    >> AR into tuned SQL queries etc.

    >
    > Why is this a good idea?


    why not?
    rails is easy to prototype but is painfully slow and hard to optimize, i
    know caching is going to play huge role but optimized complex sql
    queries are also important

    >
    >> investor was quite impresed with speed of development but of course
    >> there's trouble in paradise .. he hired a consultant :/ - this guy AFAIK
    >> did lot's of work but only in PHP and he is trying to convince investor
    >> PHP is way to go.

    >
    > PHP beats Rails in certain aspects; for instance if development of the
    > site is seasonal in nature, as opposed to continuous, the customer
    > is likely to be hiring as they need. The large availability of PHP
    > developers plays in its favour.
    >


    possibility of continous development is one of strong points of rails,
    and that's why i'm advertising it, code writen by that large group of
    php developers is usually unmaintainable. I had plenty of expirience
    with php and i know how strangely can be php written, and rails forces
    good practices like MVC, and ruby i much cleaner langue then php to
    begin wth

    >> could you please help me find some benchmarks comparing speed of PHP vs
    >> Ruby (especially YARV/JRuby, if ound some benchamrks that show Ruby is
    >> slower in interpreter), mayby comparsions of security(in Rails it's
    >> preatty imposible to do sql injections if programmer is carefull enought
    >> to use properly constructed queries).

    >
    > Well none of that is true, or really important. Sure its easier to secure Rails.
    > But if you are making a large nationwide portal (I am going to assume that
    > that means you have high activity) then the performance of your rendering
    > component (PHP or Rails) doesn't actually matter.


    if it's easier to screw up in PHP with security, then here it's REALLY
    important, try to imagine hacker group logo in something like msn/yahoo
    main page

    >
    > PHP isn't exactly assembler speed itself. Ruby is in the same league (slower
    > with 1.8, faster with YARV). There is a reason that PHP is a central component
    > in a LAMP stack - probably the solution of choice for websites with high user
    > load. In principle Ruby can do the same, in practice we have only had
    > about 2 years
    > as a community to get big Ruby sites up. You also have an equivalent ASP
    > stack based on windows components.


    what is the reason? php was never solution of choice for high-load or
    professional websites, it was promoted becouse suposed ease of use and
    installation

    >
    > All of these stacks are glued together with languages that are at least an order
    > of magnitude slower than Systems languages like Java.
    >
    >> also I'm open to any arguments(preferable documented, with showcases,
    >> and understandable by investor(who never had much expirience with
    >> computers except for e-mail and www)) that would help convince him that
    >> ruby is much better then php :)

    >
    > There's plenty of sites out there doing pretty heavy stuff with Rails,
    > but beyond
    > Rails there is not much evidence that shows pure Ruby custom web solutions
    > to scale. Rails has a lot of features and best practices built in to
    > help it scale.
    > In a pure Ruby solution you are committing to re-writing all of that
    > from scratch.


    any examples? i know google is starting to use Ruby.


    thanks for your response, it rises valid point that i have to think over
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Marcin Raczkowski

    Marc Heiler Guest

    Finally a topic I like :)


    > rails forces good practices like MVC

    I believe this is debatable. What we should not forget
    is that, while this uniform maintenance is a good
    thing in general, rails also forces you into its world of
    thinking.


    > The truth is, the language used is only one small part of many
    > things they should be carefully considering. [...]
    > The language really shouldn't matter all that much.


    I will take another approach and claim that the language
    used is and will be the biggest most influencing factor.
    It is exactly the reason why PHP became popular today -
    it beat Perl cgi scripts. It was easier to learn than perl.
    It had a good online docu. It concentrated on the web +
    database aspects.
    Every language has different pros and cons, and there may be
    some cases where php really has more advantages than ruby.
    But in general ruby as a language is simply better than php.
    That includes the world wide web, but unfortunately there
    are a little problems. Rails for example, forces you to
    think in the rails-way, for the good or for the bad.
    (By the way, it would be cool to be able to
    embed ruby straight into a .php document... right now
    I am porting my legacy .php scripts to ruby, it takes
    quite long :p )

    > also I'm open to any arguments(preferable documented, with showcases,
    > and understandable by investor(who never had much expirience with
    > computers except for e-mail and www)) that would help convince him that
    > ruby is much better then php :)


    Easiest way to convince is code examples. Focus on simple tasks that
    have some reallife usage value to him (the investor). But of course
    the comparison must be fair, so dont make it too complex ;)

    It would actually be nice to have a way to compare PURE php (+solutions)
    with PURE ruby (+solutions for web-tasks:

    * Post data into a "web formular" in both languages
    * retrieve data from a mysql database
    * run automated "comparisons" and other data manipulations
    from a "web formular" (i.e. something for your investor
    that makes working with it easy)


    Personally, I am a bit unhappy that PHP is compared to Rails so
    often ... PHP should be compared to Ruby, and then if we can,
    Ruby should improve on the area where PHP has a slight edge.

    To me, speed was NEVER a reason, and to be honest, I think
    some people really overrate the speed issue at first hand.
    At least it should be untied from OTHER reasons, such as
    the online docu part for example, where I think PHP still
    has a lead over ruby in that aspect. ;-)
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Marc Heiler, Oct 1, 2007
    #8
  9. John Joyce wrote:
    > I wouldn't sweat it much.
    > Show them good sites built with these things. Explain the reasons you
    > use what you use.
    > If they hire a consultant who only recommends one technology, then he's
    > a shill.
    > He could just as easily be an ASP shill or a Java shill or anything else.
    > Ruby and Rails are still small compared to PHP, but booming and not
    > shrinking.
    >
    > You might want to show a bit more of the ongoing history of insecurity
    > that is a lot more rampant with PHP sites, and even recommend a little
    > security through obscurity. (that's what kept VAX systems going until HP
    > end-of-lifed the OS)
    >
    > But in the end, if you don't get it, chances are they'll go with a cheap
    > and mediocre PHP shop. It's a lot like the cheap and mediocre
    > Microsoft-based shops. There are lots of them, but there are lots of bad
    > ones. Good PHP shops are probably more expensive (and busier) than you.


    One of main reasons why my (small and new) company is considered is
    becouse productivity using rails is so high that even if i want much
    more money per hour of work then php professional i finish same thing
    properly secured with rails before php developer finishes collecting his
    tools and code snippets

    >
    > The truth is, the language used is only one small part of many things
    > they should be carefully considering. Server (hardware/software) / web
    > hosting can be as/more important. The language really shouldn't matter
    > all that much. Google, Yahoo, etc... don't use strictly one language or
    > framework in house! A decent programmer / team of programmers should be
    > able to select the technology they feel will work best for them AND the
    > project together. In some cases Ruby might be the wrong choice.
    >


    I feel ruby especially thanks to JRuby (possibility to use java
    libraries), ruby:inline(possiblity to use c/c++) and IronRuby(same for
    c#) might be best choice to tie all together, and i can use rails to
    make it all work in record time

    > Everybody and their dog touts themselves as a nationwide high-traffic
    > portal site to be, but if that were true or even likely, they wouldn't
    > need a consultant, they'd have a CTO of some kind who would have already
    > decided these issues. Sounds more like your selling lawn care services
    > to a guy from the desert who has only heard of grass and is planning to
    > build a golf course.


    well, mayby i described size wrongly, first of my country is much much
    smaller then US :], money are diffirent, and stage of IT also.

    CTO's usually depend on consultants anyway, but this one agrees that
    ruby is good choice and need a little push, so I'm asking you all to
    provide me with arguments i can use in php vs. ruby battle ;)

    I know pros and cons, and I personally prefer ruby (i have solid
    background in php, never liked it, had horrible 4 months while i tried
    to maintain code written by php "programmers", which was full of sql
    injection holes) so I "know" i want to write in ruby / ruby on rails,
    and think it's right decision to use this technology.
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #10
  11. > Easiest way to convince is code examples. Focus on simple tasks that
    > have some reallife usage value to him (the investor). But of course
    > the comparison must be fair, so dont make it too complex ;)
    >
    > It would actually be nice to have a way to compare PURE php (+solutions)
    > with PURE ruby (+solutions for web-tasks:
    >
    > * Post data into a "web formular" in both languages
    > * retrieve data from a mysql database
    > * run automated "comparisons" and other data manipulations
    > from a "web formular" (i.e. something for your investor
    > that makes working with it easy)

    since i have background in php i can provide investor with code samples,
    but I know that ruby is better for me, problem is to convince investor
    that know nothing about programming

    > Personally, I am a bit unhappy that PHP is compared to Rails so
    > often ... PHP should be compared to Ruby, and then if we can,
    > Ruby should improve on the area where PHP has a slight edge.

    that's why I'm asking about advantages of ruby (read my post carefully)
    and in second order rails - if I'm talking about rails i should compare
    it to cakePHP or Smarty or something like that

    >
    > To me, speed was NEVER a reason, and to be honest, I think
    > some people really overrate the speed issue at first hand.
    > At least it should be untied from OTHER reasons, such as
    > the online docu part for example, where I think PHP still
    > has a lead over ruby in that aspect. ;-)


    Problem with online docu is that there's TONS of shity, ugly,
    exploitable code online for php and noone cares - i even saw statistics
    saying that 80% of php code have serious sql-injection vulnerabilities.


    as for speed - it doesn't matter if something is 2-3 times slower then
    same thing in J2EE, it doesn't even matter if it's 10 times slower, but
    if one request to rails takes 5 seconds on modern server it DOES matter ;)
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Wayne E. Seguin wrote:
    > On 10/1/07, Marcin Raczkowski <> wrote:
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> My company is trying to get big contract for creating and maintaining
    >> HUGE website (nation wide portal). We're trying to convince investor
    >> that Ruby (i don't mean rails) with custom tailored MVC framework is
    >> best solution, we're going to make prototypes in rails FAST, then port
    >> heaviest and most frequently used parts to my custom framework, rewrite
    >> AR into tuned SQL queries etc.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I highly advise checking out the up and coming release of Merb for your
    > framework. You can hop on irc.freenode.net#merb and ask any questions you
    > have there about speed, features, etc...
    >
    > Good luck.
    >
    > ~Wayne
    >



    Thanks i was talking with Ezra Zygmuntowich on irc a while ago, and i
    borrowed lots of ideas (and some of code) for my own microframework.

    If there were any interesting changes in merb I'll take a look, but my
    framework was designed to do exactly what i needed (which was to handle
    AJAX and forward to remote servers, then parse request and send to
    application when next AJAX request hits) and did job right :)
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #12
  13. On 10/1/07, Marcin Raczkowski <> wrote:
    > Richard Conroy wrote:
    > > Why is this a good idea?

    >
    > why not?
    > rails is easy to prototype but is painfully slow and hard to optimize,


    Well thats a claim you will have to back up. I don't see it as being
    harder than any other optimization work.

    > i know caching is going to play huge role but optimized complex sql
    > queries are also important


    And Rails/AR etc. support multiple levels of caching, and you can always
    do find_by_sql. ActiveRecord dynamic finders are fun and all, but have no
    place in a production app.

    > possibility of continous development is one of strong points of rails,
    > and that's why i'm advertising it, code writen by that large group of
    > php developers is usually unmaintainable. I had plenty of expirience
    > with php and i know how strangely can be php written, and rails forces
    > good practices like MVC, and ruby i much cleaner langue then php to
    > begin wth


    Fair enough. Win for Rails.

    > if it's easier to screw up in PHP with security, then here it's REALLY
    > important, try to imagine hacker group logo in something like msn/yahoo
    > main page


    Agreed. But the default security in Rails is not bulletproof. Its also not
    difficult to replace or improve. Edge Rails is bringing in protection for
    Cross Site Request Forgery.

    PHP security is probably going to remain a gaping wound for some time to
    come. Win for Rails.

    > >
    > > PHP isn't exactly assembler speed itself. Ruby is in the same league (slower
    > > with 1.8, faster with YARV). There is a reason that PHP is a central component
    > > in a LAMP stack - probably the solution of choice for websites with high user
    > > load. In principle Ruby can do the same, in practice we have only had
    > > about 2 years
    > > as a community to get big Ruby sites up. You also have an equivalent ASP
    > > stack based on windows components.

    >
    > what is the reason? php was never solution of choice for high-load or
    > professional websites,


    Ah no. PHP is provably in use in many of the largest sites on the internet, like
    Wikipedia, Facebook etc.. The foundations of why a basic language like
    PHP works in this
    environment is easy to understand: PHP doesn't give you many sharp tools
    to hurt yourself with so its runtime characteristics are very predictable.

    ASP stacks work the same way.

    Rails is imitating those stacks. So it should reap the same rewards,
    but the biggest
    Rails website (twitter I think) is currently not in the same league as
    the biggest PHP
    and ASP sites.

    Win to PHP. But not for much longer I suspect.


    > > There's plenty of sites out there doing pretty heavy stuff with Rails,
    > > but beyond
    > > Rails there is not much evidence that shows pure Ruby custom web solutions
    > > to scale. Rails has a lot of features and best practices built in to
    > > help it scale.
    > > In a pure Ruby solution you are committing to re-writing all of that
    > > from scratch.

    >
    > any examples? i know google is starting to use Ruby.


    Well no not really. The last really good writeup on the internal workings
    of google, came from Steve Yegge a couple of months ago (see his
    blog on Rhino on Rails).

    Ruby is not yet one of the Google sanctioned languages (C++, Java, Python
    & JavaScript).

    > thanks for your response, it rises valid point that i have to think over


    I am not being hypercritical of your choices. In your situation, I would go
    with Rails over PHP as well, for much of the same reasons (performs
    well enough, rapid delivery, long term maintenance).

    But you have committed to an ActiveRecord rewrite, and your reasoning
    is not clear. It sounds like you have read something that 'ActiveRecord
    doesn't scale' without investigating thoroughly.

    Rails gets a lot of its productivity from ActiveRecord. By getting rid of it,
    you lose that, and you also close the door on the community development
    of ActiveRecord and its supporting plugins.
     
    Richard Conroy, Oct 1, 2007
    #13
  14. > Well no not really. The last really good writeup on the internal workings
    > of google, came from Steve Yegge a couple of months ago (see his
    > blog on Rhino on Rails).


    I heard they are STARTING to use ruby from one of google employes.

    >
    > I am not being hypercritical of your choices. In your situation, I would go
    > with Rails over PHP as well, for much of the same reasons (performs
    > well enough, rapid delivery, long term maintenance).
    >
    > But you have committed to an ActiveRecord rewrite, and your reasoning
    > is not clear. It sounds like you have read something that 'ActiveRecord
    > doesn't scale' without investigating thoroughly.


    I didn't "hear" anything, i performed tests and benchmarks, with few
    ORMs (AR, Og, sequel) and pure postgres library and obviously pure hand
    made SQL is best - of course i can use AR's find_by_sql, and sometimes i
    do but it's slower then pure call.

    personally i never had to use pure postgres driver except for one small
    script that was loading xml to database(where switching from AR to
    postgres driver changed execution time from 12 min into 7 min)

    >
    > Rails gets a lot of its productivity from ActiveRecord. By getting rid of it,
    > you lose that, and you also close the door on the community development
    > of ActiveRecord and its supporting plugins.
    >



    I'm planning to use ORM, and use pure sql for most frequent calls (like
    checking for new messages, or new stories) that are made by ajax
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #14
  15. Marcin Raczkowski

    7stud -- Guest

    Marcin Raczkowski wrote:
    >> Well no not really. The last really good writeup on the internal workings
    >> of google, came from Steve Yegge a couple of months ago (see his
    >> blog on Rhino on Rails).

    >
    > I heard they are STARTING to use ruby from one of google employes.
    >


    I'm sure google will try anything that will give them an advantage, but
    Google has already made their choice for a scripting language: python.
    Google hired Guido, who is the python BDFL(i.e the Matz of python), and
    they have other significant python hires. With python wizards in house,
    I don't think they are going to be switching to ruby any time soon.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    7stud --, Oct 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Wayne E. Seguin wrote:
    > On 10/1/07, Marcin Raczkowski <> wrote:
    >> I'm planning to use ORM, and use pure sql for most frequent calls (like
    >> checking for new messages, or new stories) that are made by ajax
    >>

    >
    > Marcin,
    > In this case I recommend also evaluating the Sequel ORM.
    >
    > ~Wayne
    >


    this thread is geting complicated, i ended up replaying to few people on
    lots of issues, anyway in other thread i mentioned that i tested and
    benchmarked popular ORM's like AR, Og, Kansas and Sequel, i really liked
    sequel and pure postgres driver.
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Marcin Raczkowski

    Chad Perrin Guest

    On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 01:29:57AM +0900, Marc Heiler wrote:
    >
    > I will take another approach and claim that the language
    > used is and will be the biggest most influencing factor.
    > It is exactly the reason why PHP became popular today -
    > it beat Perl cgi scripts. It was easier to learn than perl.
    > It had a good online docu. It concentrated on the web +
    > database aspects.


    Actually, while PHP is much easier to pick up for web development for the
    majority of people who know nothing about programming and a fair bit
    about (X)HTML, it's not easier to learn in and of itself. This is
    largely a side-effect of the other major reason, besides ease of
    learning, that PHP has become so popular for low-end web development: its
    availability as a markup-embedded templating language is ubiquitous,
    whereas in most cases working with Perl requires CGI scripts and either
    SSI or generating markup from those scripts yourself.

    Perl has better online documentation than PHP, in my honest opinion. For
    one thing, it's more comprehensive and less likely to lead you astray.
    It's hard to beat perldoc (which is available on the web in addition to
    being available with the standard Perl distribution).


    > Every language has different pros and cons, and there may be
    > some cases where php really has more advantages than ruby.
    > But in general ruby as a language is simply better than php.
    > That includes the world wide web, but unfortunately there
    > are a little problems. Rails for example, forces you to
    > think in the rails-way, for the good or for the bad.
    > (By the way, it would be cool to be able to
    > embed ruby straight into a .php document... right now
    > I am porting my legacy .php scripts to ruby, it takes
    > quite long :p )


    I'd rather just embed Ruby in markup for templating. Luckily, we can do
    that now (with eruby).


    >
    > Personally, I am a bit unhappy that PHP is compared to Rails so
    > often ... PHP should be compared to Ruby, and then if we can,
    > Ruby should improve on the area where PHP has a slight edge.


    What bothers me isn't so much that PHP is compared with Rails, but that
    they're compared as if they're the same class of thing. PHP is a
    templating language. Rails is a framework that uses Ruby as its
    templating language. If you're going to compare the two, compare the
    fact that with Rails you have a framework in addition to a templating
    language (for good or ill) in one case and just a templating language in
    the other.

    Then, perhaps, talk about either PHP frameworks or ways to use Ruby as a
    templating language without a framework, once you determine whether you
    should be using a framework at all.

    --
    CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
    awj @reddit: "The terms never and always are never always true."
     
    Chad Perrin, Oct 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Hello experts,

    I thought this topic was quite related so posted in this same thread..

    We are going to start a new website (serving videos but several database
    intensive features as well), and we think it will hopefully reach a
    stage where scalability is going to become important.

    Hence I wanted some idea abt speed..

    I checked several benchmarks online between PHP, Python and Ruby, and
    found that Python is a strong winner here, with PHP and Ruby about
    distant second. However with Ruby 2.0, I read that it will use a
    bytecode compiler YARV, which will make it significantly faster than its
    current implementation Ruby 1.8... ?

    My question:
    1. When can I reasonably expect a stable Ruby 2.0 release..
    2. Are there any benchmarks as to how will it compare to PHP and Python
    in run speed?

    -Gaurang.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Gaurang Khetan, Oct 1, 2007
    #18
  19. Marcin Raczkowski

    John Joyce Guest

    > . PHP is a
    > templating language.

    PHP actually is a full-fledged programming language.

    I think one of the reasons it took off so well is that its syntax is
    very C-like so many computer science grads feel right at home with it
    after being taught C/C++/Java for so long. It takes less of a leap
    for them to start using it than would Perl or Ruby.

    The worst thing to me about PHP is its object implementation and
    overuse of sigils.

    Regarding the sigils and syntax, Ruby shows that if you have an
    identifier that is not already used in some other capacity, then it
    is enough to say it is a variable or object or a function that takes
    no arguments. A function is generally obviously a function, if it
    takes no arguments then it doesn't need parentheses ! If it is
    method it will be appended to an object's identifier. This is the
    core of Ruby's gracefulness. Why should we have to type more than we
    need to?

    That said, there is something to be said for explicitness in
    programming. If it's necessary and appropriate it is good.
    PHP as a language is pretty explicit most of the time, but to the
    point of being arguably less legible. But many programmers are overly
    accustomed to bending over backwards for code that is less legible (C/
    C++ in many cases) or abusively explicit (Java) to the point of
    redundancy.

    But in the end, none of this matters, it is up to you to try a
    language and see if you like it, see if it works for what you need.
    You're not likely going to write an OS in Ruby, but you could write a
    DSL that might make that easier to do. You're also not likely going
    to do server side scripting in COBOL, but you probably could do it
    somehow if you really wanted to, and you'd be able to connect to some
    legacy systems older than you.
     
    John Joyce, Oct 1, 2007
    #19
  20. Gaurang Khetan wrote:
    > Hello experts,
    >
    > I thought this topic was quite related so posted in this same thread..
    >
    > We are going to start a new website (serving videos but several database
    > intensive features as well), and we think it will hopefully reach a
    > stage where scalability is going to become important.
    >
    > Hence I wanted some idea abt speed..
    >
    > I checked several benchmarks online between PHP, Python and Ruby, and
    > found that Python is a strong winner here, with PHP and Ruby about
    > distant second. However with Ruby 2.0, I read that it will use a
    > bytecode compiler YARV, which will make it significantly faster than its
    > current implementation Ruby 1.8... ?
    >
    > My question:
    > 1. When can I reasonably expect a stable Ruby 2.0 release..

    december
    > 2. Are there any benchmarks as to how will it compare to PHP and Python
    > in run speed?

    there are few benchmarks, but it's really hard to compare two langues as
    i found out ^^
     
    Marcin Raczkowski, Oct 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ted Zeng
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    514
    Tim Arnold
    Oct 3, 2006
  2. Ted Zeng
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    638
    Ted Zeng
    Oct 13, 2006
  3. torque63
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    625
    torque63
    Jan 1, 2009
  4. Rajive Narain
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,893
    Rajive Narain
    Sep 18, 2009
  5. Miquel Oliete
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    170
    Miquel Oliete
    Mar 7, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page