On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:44:08 -0700, Paul Rubin
wrote:
>There are both kinds. The first kind is called a Virtual Private Server
>(VPS). The second kind is called shared hosting.
Thanks much for the infos.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Gilles writes:
> Do Python hosters provide a VM so that it's just like a remote Linux
> server where I'm free to install whatever I want, or do they force
> users to use specific versions of Python and specific frameworks eg.
> Django?
There are both kinds. The first kind is called a Virtual Pri
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:39:50 +0200, Gilles wrote:
>I'm an amateur programmer, and would like to know what the main
>options are to build web applications in Python instead of PHP.
When I need to host my Python application (preferably in Europe since
my users will be located there), what are the o
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:03:29 -0500, Tim Chase
wrote:
>That's just my off-the-top-of-my-head list of things that you'd have
>to come up with that Django happens to give you out-of-the-box.
Thanks much. So the next step will have to find a framework that's
right for a given application.
--
http://
On 6/13/2012 6:45 PM, Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:16:31 +0200, Christian Heimes
wrote:
PHP was developed for non-developers. (see
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/ ).
It's much easier and also cheaper to find bad coders and non-developers
than code peop
On 06/13/12 17:44, Gilles wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2012 22:16:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Surely the obvious answer is that a framework offers the benefit that you
>> don't have to write the application from scratch.
>
> Yes, but between receiving the query and sending the response, what
> fea
> Indeed, but with so much criticism about PHP, it's odd that they would
> still choose it.
Could be a familiarity/ease issue as it was originally started by a
college student (and college students seldom have meaningful real
world experience) before it exploded in size. Also do not forget
that
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 00:44:23 +0200, Gilles wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2012 22:16:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>>Surely the obvious answer is that a framework offers the benefit that
>>you don't have to write the application from scratch.
>
> Yes, but between receiving the query and sending the respo
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:12:37 +, "Prasad, Ramit"
wrote:
>You are not Facebook (at least yet).
Indeed, but with so much criticism about PHP, it's odd that they would
still choose it.
Anyway, thanks much for the infos. I'll look at the web frameworks and
how to connect the Python app to a front
> >PHP was developed for non-developers. (see
> >http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/ ).
> >It's much easier and also cheaper to find bad coders and non-developers
> >than code people. The outcome is bad performance and lots of security
> >issues.
>
> And as to why Fac
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:16:31 +0200, Christian Heimes
wrote:
>PHP was developed for non-developers. (see
>http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/ ).
>It's much easier and also cheaper to find bad coders and non-developers
>than code people. The outcome is bad performance a
On 13 Jun 2012 22:16:51 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>Surely the obvious answer is that a framework offers the benefit that you
>don't have to write the application from scratch.
Yes, but between receiving the query and sending the response, what
features do frameworks offer that I'd have to writ
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:17:12 +0200, Gilles wrote:
> Thanks for the longer explanation. With so many frameworks, I'd like to
> know what benefits they offer as compared to writing an application from
> scratch
Surely the obvious answer is that a framework offers the benefit that you
don't have to
Am 13.06.2012 22:48, schrieb Gilles:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:27:21 +0200, Christian Heimes
> wrote:
>> A long running process has lots of benefits that makes design and
>> development easier and makes your app faster.
>
> Thanks much for the infos. Makes you wonder why commercial companies
> sti
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:27:21 +0200, Christian Heimes
wrote:
>A long running process has lots of benefits that makes design and
>development easier and makes your app faster.
Thanks much for the infos. Makes you wonder why commercial companies
still choose PHP to write their web site.
--
http://m
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:01:23 +, "Prasad, Ramit"
wrote:
>Maybe this article will help you
>http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/pillars-python-six-python-web-frameworks-compared-169442
>The comments on /. should round out anything missing from the article (I hope)
>http://develop
> Thanks for the longer explanation. With so many frameworks, I'd like
> to know what benefits they offer as compared to writing an application
> from scratch, and if they do offer obvious benefits, which one to pick
I am going to state up front that I have never tried any of the
frameworks so ta
On 2012-06-13, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:36:36 +0200, Gilles wrote:
>
>> I enjoy writing scripts in Python much more than PHP, but with so many
>> sites written in PHP, I need to know what major benefits there are in
>> choosing Python (or Ruby, ie. not PHP).
>
> The main ben
Am 12.06.2012 11:39, schrieb Gilles:
> I notice that Python-based solutions are usually built as long-running
> processes with their own web server (or can run in the back with eg.
> Nginx and be reached through eg. FastCGI/WSGI ) while PHP is simply a
> language to write scripts and requires a web
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:00:59 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>Most high level languages probably have some sort of HTTP server
>available. Some make it trivially easy to plug some code in and start
>serving. Python is advertised as "batteries included", and one of its
>packets of batteries is a fairl
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Gilles wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:41:41 +1000, Chris Angelico
> wrote:
>>For high-availability servers, I can't speak for Python, as I've never
>>done that there; but it seems likely that there's good facilities. My
>>personal preference is Pike, but that's o
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:41:41 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>For high-availability servers, I can't speak for Python, as I've never
>done that there; but it seems likely that there's good facilities. My
>personal preference is Pike, but that's off-topic for this list. :)
>But the simple answer for s
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Gilles wrote:
> I have a couple more questions:
>
> 1. Today what is the recommended way to connect a long-running Python
> web application with a web server running in the front? FastCGI? WSGI?
> Other?
>
> 2. Which solid web server is recommended to connect to Py
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:48:27 +0200, Matej Cepl
wrote:
>I don't think it is a proper description of the situation (please,
>somebody correct my mistakes, I am not 100% sure about it myself). WSGI
>applications (which is basically all web applications in Python) could
>run in the hosted servers (
On 13 Jun 2012 08:29:05 GMT, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
>
>and especially lack PHP's security vulnerabilities.
Thanks for the link.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:19:29 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>It's far simpler to manage, it retains running state, and is easily
>enough encapsulated. It's the non-magic way of doing things. Also, it
>plays very nicely with the MUD style of process, which is something I
>do a lot with Pike. Plus, if
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:36:36 +0200, Gilles wrote:
> I enjoy writing scripts in Python much more than PHP, but with so many
> sites written in PHP, I need to know what major benefits there are in
> choosing Python (or Ruby, ie. not PHP).
The main benefit is that they are not PHP.
http://me.veekun
On 12-06-12 07:57 PM, Gilles wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:42:56 -0400, D'Arcy Cain
wrote:
I guess I am in the minority then. I do plan to turn one of my larger
projects into a standalone web server some day but so far writing
simple Python CGI scripts has served me fine. I even do some embedd
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Gilles wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:18:21 +1000, Chris Angelico
> wrote:
>>Think of it as Apache + PHP versus Python. Apache keeps running, it's
>>only your PHP script that starts and stops. With a long-running
>>process, you keep everything all in together, wh
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:28:22 +0300, "Octavian Rasnita"
wrote:
>Otherwise... if you want you can also create a web app using PHP and
>CodeIgniter web framework and run it with fastcgi...
Thanks for the infos.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:18:21 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>Think of it as Apache + PHP versus Python. Apache keeps running, it's
>only your PHP script that starts and stops. With a long-running
>process, you keep everything all in together, which IMHO is simpler
>and better.
Why is a long-running
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:01:10 +1000, Chris Angelico
wrote:
>Apache's mod_php partially evens out the difference, but not
>completely, and of course, it's perfectly possible to write a dispatch
>loop in PHP, as Octavian said.
It looks like mod_php and equivalents for web servers other than
Apache a
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:42:56 -0400, D'Arcy Cain
wrote:
>I guess I am in the minority then. I do plan to turn one of my larger
>projects into a standalone web server some day but so far writing
>simple Python CGI scripts has served me fine. I even do some embedding
>by using server side scripting
On 12/06/12 11:39, Gilles wrote:
I notice that Python-based solutions are usually built as long-running
processes with their own web server (or can run in the back with eg.
Nginx and be reached through eg. FastCGI/WSGI ) while PHP is simply a
language to write scripts and requires a web server (s
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Thanks for the input.
>
> But I read that PHP-based heavy-duty web servers compile the scripts
> once and keep them in a cache, so they don't have to be
> read/parsed/executed with each new query.
>
> In that case, what is the benefit of using a lon
On 12-06-12 06:36 AM, Gilles wrote:
I enjoy writing scripts in Python much more than PHP, but with so many
sites written in PHP, I need to know what major benefits there are in
choosing Python (or Ruby, ie. not PHP).
I think that you just answered your own question in the first line of
that par
From: "Chris Angelico"
Subject: Re: [newbie] Equivalent to PHP?
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Gilles wrote:
>> Since web scripts are usually very short anyway (user sends query,
>> server handles request, sends response, and closes the port) because
>> t
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:12:55 +0200, Alain Ketterlin
wrote:
>You misunderstand the problem here. It's not about the duration of the
>actions, it's about the latency it takes to read/parse/execute the
>script. HTTP is stateless anyway, so if the same "interpreter" handles
>several requests, what you
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Gilles wrote:
> Since web scripts are usually very short anyway (user sends query,
> server handles request, sends response, and closes the port) because
> the user is waiting and browsers usually give up after 30 seconds
> anyway... why did Python solutions go for
Gilles writes:
> I notice that Python-based solutions are usually built as long-running
> processes with their own web server (or can run in the back with eg.
> Nginx and be reached through eg. FastCGI/WSGI ) while PHP is simply a
> language to write scripts and requires a web server (short runni
40 matches
Mail list logo
