On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Oliver Grätz wrote:
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
[...] instead of waiting what we'll
break next.
*ROTFL*
You seem to develop a healthy fatalism ;-)
I'm just realistic. I _KNOW_ we're gonna break stuff.
Intentionally, "accidently" and accidently.
--Jan
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:02:09 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oliver Grätz) wrote:
> Pierre schrieb:
>
> > This argument is irrelevant. You only hide the possible lack of
> > scalability behind hardware improvements.
>
> A "lack of scalability" will only occur if the Unicode features
> create a more tha
Jani Taskinen schrieb:
>
> [...] instead of waiting what we'll
> break next.
*ROTFL*
You seem to develop a healthy fatalism ;-)
Bier?
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Oliver Grätz wrote:
And people will do more with PHP ultimately making the MHz boost
irrelevant. Despite tremendous increases in hardware performance, the
software we run seems to run slower and slower.
Which doesn't stop them from moving from PHP to Ruby (which I suppose
Oliver Grätz wrote:
> http://www.ister.org/code/article/de/php45bench.xhtml
>
> indicate that PHP5 is slower than PHP4, but in the note at the end there
> is some evidence that PHP5.1 will be significantly faster than PHP4 when
> it comes to objects and classes (which is what people who "do more w
Pierre schrieb:
> This argument is irrelevant. You only hide the possible lack of
> scalability behind hardware improvements.
A "lack of scalability" will only occur if the Unicode features create a
more than linear performance drop which I suppose won't happen. Even if
it becomes three times slo
Ilia Alshanetsky schrieb:
>>And remember: PHP6 will not be released for at least a year. So by then
>>typical servers will run at several hundred MHz more, so perhaps the
>>speed penalty won't be noticed at all.
> And people will do more with PHP ultimately making the MHz boost
> irrelevant. Despi
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:43:03 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oliver Grätz) wrote:
> And remember: PHP6 will not be released for at least a year. So by
> then typical servers will run at several hundred MHz more, so perhaps
> the speed penalty won't be noticed at all.
This argument is irrelevant. You on
Oliver Grätz wrote:
> And remember: PHP6 will not be released for at least a year. So by then
> typical servers will run at several hundred MHz more, so perhaps the
> speed penalty won't be noticed at all.
And people will do more with PHP ultimately making the MHz boost
irrelevant. Despite tremend
And remember: PHP6 will not be released for at least a year. So by then
typical servers will run at several hundred MHz more, so perhaps the
speed penalty won't be noticed at all. This is even more true compared
to the current speed of PHP as there will (If I recall this correctly)
be significant p
Ditto please!
Jevon
- Original Message -
From: "Ron Korving" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 8:27 PM
Subject: [php] Re: [PHP-DEV] Unicode Implementation
> Well, if you want my 2 cents as well, the 2 cents a PHP user is very
willing
>
Well, if you want my 2 cents as well, the 2 cents a PHP user is very willing
to share with you guys...
PHP6 is a major release. BC is a priority, but as far as I'm concerned not
the top priority. I wouldn't mind a unicode-only PHP at all. Like a few
others here, I think the speed penalty won't be
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:55:45 -0400 (EDT), in php.internals
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Maccabee Trachtenberg) wrote:
>We seem to be under the impression that the Unicode speed penalty will
>be so harsh that a Unicode-only PHP 6 will be too slow for
>use. However, we don't know that for sure. Yes, it wi
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
> > Which is why we need the unicode=off switch. I don't think there is any
> > way we can make Unicode PHP as fast as non-Unicode PHP. For people who
> > need Unicode support, Unicode PHP will be faster and
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> George Schlossnagle wrote:
>> Perhaps we need a separate version fork for the unicode support. I'm
>> thinking one of those nifty unicode glyphs. It could be called 'the
>> language formerly known as PHP'.
>
> The Phillipine currency is called PHP. Do they perhaps have
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
What is wrong with PHP 5.1? People don't *have* to upgrade to the
unicode enabled PHP if they don't want to. And it would probably be
"nice" to have that mode for some users, but should that be over our own
back with multi
Hello John,
Friday, October 7, 2005, 11:47:14 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 22:09 +0100, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>> The "don't upgrade" argument doesn't work. Unless we commit to having
>> two major versions forever where we will add new features. That is a
>> possibility as well of cour
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 22:09 +0100, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> The "don't upgrade" argument doesn't work. Unless we commit to having
> two major versions forever where we will add new features. That is a
> possibility as well of course. Have 2 trees. Unicode-PHP and
> non-Unicode-PHP and everything
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>>Assuming that 5.1 would be actively maintained and not just for bug
>>fixes, I'd say that is a viable approach. There are plenty of sites that
>> have no use for Unicode as nice as it may be, and much rather retain
>>performance over useless (for them) functionality.
>
>
>
George Schlossnagle wrote:
> Perhaps we need a separate version fork for the unicode support. I'm
> thinking one of those nifty unicode glyphs. It could be called 'the
> language formerly known as PHP'.
The Phillipine currency is called PHP. Do they perhaps have a currency
symbol?
-Rasmus
-
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>
>>>Assuming that 5.1 would be actively maintained and not just for bug
>>>fixes, I'd say that is a viable approach. There are plenty of sites that
>>> have no use for Unicode as nice as it may be, and much rather retain
>>>perf
On Oct 7, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
George Schlossnagle wrote:
What is wrong with PHP 5.1? People don't *have* to upgrade to the
unicode enabled PHP if they don't want to. And it would probably be
"nice" to have that mode for some users, but should tha
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > Assuming that 5.1 would be actively maintained and not just for bug
> > fixes, I'd say that is a viable approach. There are plenty of sites that
> > have no use for Unicode as nice as it may be, and much rather retain
> > performance over useless (for
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> George Schlossnagle wrote:
>
>>>What is wrong with PHP 5.1? People don't *have* to upgrade to the
>>>unicode enabled PHP if they don't want to. And it would probably be
>>>"nice" to have that mode for some users, but should that be over our own
>>>back with multiple impl
George Schlossnagle wrote:
>> What is wrong with PHP 5.1? People don't *have* to upgrade to the
>> unicode enabled PHP if they don't want to. And it would probably be
>> "nice" to have that mode for some users, but should that be over our own
>> back with multiple implementations of everything?
>
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > What is wrong with PHP 5.1? People don't *have* to upgrade to the
> > unicode enabled PHP if they don't want to. And it would probably be
> > "nice" to have that mode for some users, but should that be over our own
> > back with multiple implementat
On Oct 7, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
Which is why we need the unicode=off switch. I don't think there
is any
way we can make Unicode PHP as fast as non-Unicode PHP. For
people who
need Unicode support, Unicode PHP will be faster an
Derick Rethans wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
>
>
>>>We definitely need to look at that since if upgrading to 6.0 means a 3x
>>>slower operation very few people will even consider upgrading.
>>
>>Which is why we need the unicode=off switch. I don't think there is any
>>way we
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> > We definitely need to look at that since if upgrading to 6.0 means a 3x
> > slower operation very few people will even consider upgrading.
>
> Which is why we need the unicode=off switch. I don't think there is any
> way we can make Unicode PHP as fa
Ilia Alshanetsky wrote:
> Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>
>>>- we have a bit less BC.
>>
>>
>>"A bit less"? I'd say it would break BC in a major way. People who want
>>to upgrade to PHP 6 would need to rewrite a lot of their scripts.
>
>
> I think most large applications will be in this boat anyway, we
Andrei Zmievski wrote:
>> - we have a bit less BC.
>
>
> "A bit less"? I'd say it would break BC in a major way. People who want
> to upgrade to PHP 6 would need to rewrite a lot of their scripts.
I think most large applications will be in this boat anyway, we may as
well do it properly once, so
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Andrei Zmievski wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> >
> > I think I would prefer an IS_UNICODE/unicode=on only PHP.
> >
> > This would mean that:
> > - no duplicate functionality for tons of functions that will make
> > maintaining the thing very har
On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:
I am thinking that we're doing something with the unicode
implementation and
that's that we're now getting duplicate implementations of quite some
things:
functions, internal functions, hash implementations, two ways for
storing
identifiers...
Hello Derick,
Thursday, October 6, 2005, 7:56:34 PM, you wrote:
> Hello!
> I am thinking that we're doing something with the unicode implementation and
> that's that we're now getting duplicate implementations of quite some things:
> functions, internal functions, hash implementations, two ways
34 matches
Mail list logo
