Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:56850
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.160.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADqTB_gr_vy3b1SDYfLLh2kCAWR8psdAbEE4Hm38L1E6kGKY9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADqTB_gr_vy3b1SDYfLLh2kCAWR8psdAbEE4Hm38L1E6kGKY9A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2011 01:52:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU5EEZffdE4LwPAHTbxQzKZStFfyiW73yDV-UX67POHnkg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Phalanger
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,

As a windows developer and user, and core developer of PHP as well as
contributor to many OSS projects to help them to support windows
better and keep the code portable, I'd to say that to base a project
on .net is a wrong start to begin with. A very wrong one. And I really
like .net, I only won't ever consider it for anything where I need
full control (memory, performance, cross platform, etc.). The same
goes for Java btw.

It is also possible to write extension for .net module using C++/CLI
very easily. I have done that a couple of times already (some are
public on github too btw, like the MS Chart module).

As of phalanger, to me it is and remains a toy project, nice
experiment but the way to go is to stick to C (eventually C++ but
there may have even more people against it than .net ;-).

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Rasmus Schultz <rasmus@mindplay.dk> wrote:
> Don't take this the wrong way, I'm merely trying to provoke your thoughts=
 a
> bit with this e-mail! :-)
>
> Has it occurred to anyone, to abandon the official PHP codebase and adopt
> Phalanger instead?
>
> Some convincing (to me) points:
>
> - Phalanger runs on Mono, meaning similar platform-reach as PHP. (but
> eliminating most platform-specific implementations.)
>
> - It's fast. (probably fast enough to mostly eliminate the need for nativ=
e
> extensions in general.)
>
> - The community would be able to write modules/extensions in PHP or other
> CLR languages.
>
> - It's secure. (not that C/FFI PHP extensions tend not to be trustworthy,
> but they do tend to come from a relatively small group of authors.)
>
> - Access to more languages means a much bigger community who can contribu=
te
> extensions and core patches.
>
> - Access to existing CLR codebases means more third-party libraries can b=
e
> readily integrated without writing and maintainting C/FFI wrappers.
>
> - The codebase is new, clean and modern (it's not dragging around a lot o=
f
> legacy baggage.)
>
> - Fully take advantage of new 64-bit hardware (vector computations and
> larger address space) in all aspects. (core, extensions, PHP scripts).
>
> I'm not going to try to sell you on the fact that the integration with th=
e
> Windows world is tighter in Phalanger than in PHP - but it is a point tha=
t
> carries considerable weight =A0to many businesses.
>
> People I know have had a tendency to view Phalanger as "PHP for Windows" =
-
> it's really not. It's PHP for CLR - and CLR is not (only) Windows. And it
> is readily available on most modern operating systems with good support f=
or
> various hardware platforms.
>
> Now, before you start flaming me - I'd love to hear precisely why you're
> eager to hang on to the C codebase. What are the benefits of the C codeba=
se
> over Phalanger?
>
> I understand the licensing may be an issue. It may be the argument that
> outweighs everything else, but I'm curious to hear what else would keep y=
ou
> from moving to Phalanger?
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Rasmus Schultz



--=20
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org