On 12/07/11 9:29 AM, Steve Edwards wrote:
Many times, I've made the statement that you can execute hundreds of
AGIs written in C in the time it takes to load an interpreter and parse
a script written in PHP or Perl.
Well, now that I know better, let's not perpetuate an ancient claim.
'Dozens' is more appropriate with current hardware.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011, Matt Riddell wrote:
It would be interesting to see the same types of tests run against
fast-agi - personally if I write an agi that will be called 1000 times
I'm going to leave it running and have network requests against it
rather than starting and stopping every time.
Isn't every AGI going to be executed 1,000s of times over it's lifetime?
'Standalone' AGIs still have advantages in lower complexity and less
impact on failure. If a bug takes out your fastagi daemon it can affect
all calls.
Unless the bits between the AGI and DB calls are significant, there should
be no significant difference between source languages in a fastagi
environment.
One of my other objections to scripting languages are that they don't
'catch' stupid errors for me (like a misspelled variable name) as well as
compiled languages. 'gcc -Wall' is my friend.
Also they tend to be used more by 'non-programmers' who get away with
'stupid' stuff like calling out to system() and piping a bunch of commands
together because they don't know how to use the language properly :)
Mind if I post it to the Daily Asterisk News?
You have my permission.
--
Thanks in advance,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Edwards sedwa...@sedwards.com Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST
Newline Fax: +1-760-731-3000
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
http://www.asterisk.org/hello
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
