On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:15:55AM -0400, Stephen Takacs wrote:
>
> One point I forgot to mention ealier to the OP: another nice thing
> about Perl is that it comes in the base system. All other languages
> you mentioned have to be installed via packages/ports.
>
Absolutely one of my motivatio
Tim Donahue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my experience since stuff in CPAN generally "Just Works"(TM) on
> OpenBSD and is as simple as `perl -MCPAN - e "install "` I
> really can't see any compelling reasons for everything to be put into
> the ports tree.
As you say, CPAN itself works fine inde
On Fri, 26 May 2006 10:40:02 +0200
Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The main issue with perl modules is that there are so many of them.
> Most of CPAN is trivial to port over to OpenBSD, but is it worth it ?
> Most of it probably isn't...
Porting all of CPAN is probably not necessary, and
To refocus the current discussion somewhat, I'm going with HTML::Mason
myself, for various reasons.
The first one is that I trust the perl people to do something sensible.
They've got a lot of advanced frameworks that do work, and they understand
something about security.
The downside is the docu
This has nothing to do with OpenBSD. Please take your childish language
flamewars to private email.
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Jonathan Weiss wrote:
> Cheers,
>
> Adam wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 May 2006 02:08:45 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > So Ruby is slower than Python for y
Okay, in an attempt to avoid this little holy war, I'll throw in my
two cents... but only in regards to php and perl, which I have
experience in. php is quick (at least mod_php), php is easy, pear is
almost cool. perl is quick (particularly mod_perl), CPAN (of which
Mason is a part of) is incre
Can we please end this crappy, off-topic thread right now?
Thank you.
Chris
I think it's a good time to quote this from the original post:
On 5/22/06, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi list,
I'm going to attempt to word this carefully as I'm looking for a
non-flame debate on the merits of PHP, Mason, Ruby, and JSP/Tomcat.
I have googled about extensively and
Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:18:06 -0700 Wakefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spewed:
> >
> > > Again, speaking from my experience Ruby on Rails is more productive than
> > > Catalist or Django, but that depends on your application and skills.
On 5/23/06, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
didn't some "al-zarqawi" behead you in iraq?
That'll teach you never to dismiss the recent advances in surgery. I
should have listened to my parents. They said if you want to get ahead
in life, become a doctor.
they really had me going
Cheers,
Adam wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 02:51:55 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You just do not want to understand and flame Rails.
Right, I don't understand.
Yes, you do not understand me.
Its easier to pretend I am just confused than
to face reality and admit that you
On Tue, 23 May 2006 18:18:06 -0700 Wakefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spewed:
> >
> > > Again, speaking from my experience Ruby on Rails is more productive than
> > > Catalist or Django, but that depends on your application and skills.
> >
> > If you already know ruby,
>-Nick
>
didn't some "al-zarqawi" behead you in iraq?
they really had me going for a minute with that video ;)
Adam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spewed:
> Again, speaking from my experience Ruby on Rails is more productive than
> Catalist or Django, but that depends on your application and skills.
If you already know ruby, sure you will be faster in rails. If you
know more than one of the languages in question,
Cheers,
Adam wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006 02:08:45 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So Ruby is slower than Python for your application.
No, it is slower than Python for everything. Every single basic function
of the language is slower, conditionals, loops, instantiating objects
On Wed, 24 May 2006 02:08:45 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So Ruby is slower than Python for your application.
No, it is slower than Python for everything. Every single basic function
of the language is slower, conditionals, loops, instantiating objects,
calling methods, inde
Cheers,
Like I said, I did. Rails is over 3 times slower than django for some
stuff, and ruby in general is far slower for EVERY single script I have
ever compared with.
So Ruby is slower than Python for your application.
The author does not say that Ruby is slow
Yes he does. Unlike
On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:09:05 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cheers,
>
> >
> > Yes, it is incredibly slow. Here's some benchmarks showing python is
> > significantly faster in everything but startup time. Even the author
> > of ruby says ruby is slow, and its planned to make
Cheers,
Yes, it is incredibly slow. Here's some benchmarks showing python is
significantly faster in everything but startup time. Even the author
of ruby says ruby is slow, and its planned to make it a bytecode compiled
language like everyone else in ruby 2.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org
On Tue, 23 May 2006 16:10:01 -0500 (CDT) "L. V. Lammert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006, Adam wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:29:56 +0100 Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Being interpreted is certainly part of the problem. Quickly compiled
> > languages lik
On 23 May 2006, at 22:10, L. V. Lammert wrote:
>> Being interpreted is certainly part of the problem. Quickly compiled
>> languages like python, perl and pike are significantly faster, while
>> still being very dynamic and flexible.
>
> RoR uses fastcgi, .. which is just as fast as Perl or Python
On Tue, 23 May 2006, Adam wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:29:56 +0100 Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Being interpreted is certainly part of the problem. Quickly compiled
> languages like python, perl and pike are significantly faster, while
> still being very dynamic and flexible.
>
On Tue, 23 May 2006 22:04:10 +0200 Jonathan Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:05:45 -0500 (CDT) "L. V. Lammert" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> my personal favorite:
> >>
> >>> Rails is MVC, so the URL presented to the user HAS NOT page identifier
Adam wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:05:45 -0500 (CDT) "L. V. Lammert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
my personal favorite:
Rails is MVC, so the URL presented to the user HAS NOT page identifier
(i.e. only the controller name)!
Uh, there's MVC frameworks in pretty much every language. Ruby is
*) Ruby
+ Apache chroot
+ Ruby on Rails
- loosely typed
- interpreted
Ruby is strongly but dynamically typed.
So
a = "hi"
a = 1
is ok but
a = "1"
b = a + 1
is not.
I consided this an advantage.
Jonathan
On Tue, 23 May 2006 20:29:56 +0100 Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I looked at Ruby about a year ago and dismissed it then because of
> speed. I thought that the overhead of instantiating an object in an
> interpreted language was the problem.
Being interpreted is certainly part of the
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 01:32:59PM -0400, Adam wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:05:45 -0500 (CDT) "L. V. Lammert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > my personal favorite:
> >
> > > Rails is MVC, so the URL presented to the user HAS NOT page identifier
> > (i.e. only the controller name)!
>
> Uh,
On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:05:45 -0500 (CDT) "L. V. Lammert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> my personal favorite:
>
> > Rails is MVC, so the URL presented to the user HAS NOT page identifier
> (i.e. only the controller name)!
Uh, there's MVC frameworks in pretty much every language. Ruby is
incredib
On Mon, 22 May 2006, Craig Skinner wrote:
> *) Ruby
> + Apache chroot
> + Ruby on Rails
> - loosely typed
> - interpreted
>
A few other reasons we're looking at Ruby:
> Rails has testing capabilities built-in
> RAKE (Ruby Make) allows simple migration from dev/test/production
my personal favorit
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 12:44:57AM -0400, Jeremy Huiskamp wrote:
> >*) JSP/Tomcat
> >+ chroot
> >+ strongly typed
> >+ compiled - mostly
> >- complex
>
> Possibly my lack of knowledge here, but how are you figuring on
> having tomcat in chroot? It won't be in apache's.
>
Nope: http://www.orei
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 07:02:59PM -0500, bofh wrote:
> On 5/22/06, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm worried about data driven HTTP attacks getting past the reverse
> > Squid proxy on the bastion host and into the LAN server, especially via
> > HTTPS when contents are not examin
Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Web/ticketing/wiki all comes together easily with Perl, but as Perl is
> so powerful at the OS level, there is little point in shoving it all
> into a chroot.
You don't have to. If you use something like fastcgi[1], then your code
can run independantly
*) JSP/Tomcat
+ chroot
+ strongly typed
+ compiled - mostly
- complex
Possibly my lack of knowledge here, but how are you figuring on
having tomcat in chroot? It won't be in apache's.
On 5/22/06, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
You should install all of them and go nuts and post your findings.
I've spent alot of time with php, perl and java. In my world where
I only use a single 1U for production it boils down like this:
Java is a pig for http. Tasks
On 5/22/06, Craig Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm worried about data driven HTTP attacks getting past the reverse
> Squid proxy on the bastion host and into the LAN server, especially via
> HTTPS when contents are not examined so well.
Just curious, why aren't you looking at apache for
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:53:27PM +0100, Craig Skinner wrote:
> *) Mason
> - not practical in chroot without half of CPAN, so what is the point?
>
> I am leaning towards Mason behind a reverse Squid proxy
I would think that if you use mason with mod_perl[1] instead of running
it as a CGI, you don
Hi list,
I'm going to attempt to word this carefully as I'm looking for a
non-flame debate on the merits of PHP, Mason, Ruby, and JSP/Tomcat.
I have googled about extensively and similar threads seem to end up
with various posters slinging mud and then licking wounds. Not my
intention. An overvie
37 matches
Mail list logo
