joe wrote:
I currently do most of my web development in PHP, with some work in Ruby
with RoR. Right now I'm starting to think about building my own stack for
web dev (I already use my own MVC framework and libs in PHP), but I'd
really like to move to something faster and more powerful. Java
On 22/05/2011 11:57, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Sat, 21 May 2011 05:15:32 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas simen.kja...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
It's the old C syntax for defining function pointers. Well, without the
pointer. And that last part is important, because the latter example is
an array of
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Should I file a bug report to kill this syntax?
No. It is perfectly valid, see grammar:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/declaration.html
What is strange about this syntax in particular?
int i; //declares i of type int
alias int i; //defines i as type int
int func(int);
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Regular CGI still has the overhead of starting a new process for
every request.
That's a very small cost - between 1 and 5 milliseconds, depending
on your hardware.
Next to the network latency involved in making a request, that's
literally nothing - it's less than
I've never done any CGI stuff before, but can't you employ some kind
of messaging mechanism with an already running process?
Yes. I find it's quite useful when you want instant notifications
on something, like a web chat application, but it could do some
speed boosts too.
I'm working on a post
On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:40:22 +0200, Matthew Ong on...@yahoo.com wrote:
Using your code I have this error:
src\Sample.d(16): Error: undefined identifier btype, did you mean
template AType(string name,U,alias V)?
src\Sample.d(16): Error: mixin AType!(ClassB,string,_error_) does not
match
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
PHP without CGI is likely to be faster than D with CGI.
Nope.
In my last post, I did cgi/D vs builtin/D and we saw a 10 ms
difference (running on my home computer. I did the same thing on
the live company server just now and saw only a 2 ms difference -
proper
On 22/05/2011 13:09, Lutger Blijdestijn wrote:
joe wrote:
I currently do most of my web development in PHP, with some work in Ruby
with RoR. Right now I'm starting to think about building my own stack for
web dev (I already use my own MVC framework and libs in PHP), but I'd
really like to move
On 22/05/2011 19:11, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
I've never done any CGI stuff before, but can't you employ some kind
of messaging mechanism with an already running process?
Yes. I find it's quite useful when you want instant notifications
on something, like a web chat application, but it could do
Hi,
Further to discussion on the above topic around Jan, I have
uploaded a D2/Phobos based port of postgres and sqlite jdbc drivers
to
http://dsource.org/projects/ddbc
This also contains a port of libodbcxx.
A sample program working with the library has also been put up. Its
just an initial
Robert Clipsham wrote:
Have you tried FastCGI?
I haven't. I read about it but concluded it would actually be just
about as difficult to implement as a minimalist http server, so
I never went into it.
(http itself is hard to get all the corner cases right, but if you
live behind something like
Very interesting benchmarks!
On 22/05/2011 16:20, Timon Gehr wrote:
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Should I file a bug report to kill this syntax?
No. It is perfectly valid, see grammar:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/declaration.html
Grammar states only that it's syntactically valid, and makes no comment on
semantic
On Sun, 22 May 2011 20:10:07 +0300, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Regular CGI still has the overhead of starting a new process for
every request.
That's a very small cost - between 1 and 5 milliseconds, depending
on your hardware.
Next to the
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
But if your website is getting enough hits to generate more
requests than the server can process, technology choice matters a
lot.
Yeah. I've never had that happen, so I don't really know. If it
happens, it's easy enough to change later. (it was a two line change
just
On Sun, 22 May 2011 22:41:12 +0300, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
We can ignore the network, embrace CGI, and still *easily* crush
PHP performance with anything more complicated than hello world.
Interesting. Thanks.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir
On 22/05/2011 22:40, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
But if your website is getting enough hits to generate more
requests than the server can process, technology choice matters a
lot.
Yeah. I've never had that happen, so I don't really know. If it
happens, it's easy enough to
Robert Clipsham wrote:
FastCGI has an interface available that emulates CGI - that's not
exactly harder to implement
What scared me was that the data comes in on a socket... so wouldn't
that come with the same threading problems my simple http server
has? (Where one slow request means everyone
On Mon, 23 May 2011 03:49:49 +0300, Adam D. Ruppe
destructiona...@gmail.com wrote:
What scared me was that the data comes in on a socket... so wouldn't
that come with the same threading problems my simple http server
has? (Where one slow request means everyone else has to wait)
Asynchronous
Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
Have you heard about NodeJS?
Yeah. It's actually not too much different than the way my network
manager code works in D (which the embedded http server is made on)
although their implementation is much better than mine - I just use
select() in the event loop.
The key
20 matches
Mail list logo
