2007/12/4, Michael McGlothlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Actually, it's an expected tradeoff of interpreted languages. > > Compilable languages have both a compiler and a linker that bundles > > everything in one executable. By using bytecode caching and bundling > > you're just getting closer to the performance expectations of a > > compilable language. But bundling is not as easy as it seems, and its > > complexity is proportionally inverse to the complexity of the language. > > > > As much as you can try to improve this area, you can't do much without > > resorting to hacks and workarounds. An option is becoming a > > managed-code language such as Java or the .Net family. > If your already doing bytecode caching how much benefit is there to > bundling? In that case it seems the main slow downs would be the minor time > involved in any actual system calls and whatever logic is done for imports.
> [snip] > I'm a firm believer that it's better to throw more CPU power at a > performance problem than to make code less maintainable. Just buy a faster > server. I completely agree with you, I'm not saying that you can obtain an actual benefit from bundling, but that no one can deny the fact that bundling can improve performance. The actual problem is that it's usually considered that better performance means more benefits. Performance at the cost of maintainability is not a benefit, economically speaking. I'd rather invest in better hardware than in the "leet team of php guru hackers".
