<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_20_1433257</id>
	<title>The Environmental Impact of PHP Compared To C++ On Facebook</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261324320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Kensai7 writes <i>"Recently, Facebook provided us with some <a href="http://idleprocess.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/presentation-summary-high-performance-at-massive-scale-lessons-learned-at-facebook/">information on their server park</a>. They use about 30,000 servers, and not surprisingly, most of them are running PHP code to generate pages full of social info for their users. As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, let's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000. If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then <a href="http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt#/blog/2009/12/17/facebook\_\_php\_\_is\_not\_very\_kopenhagen">22,500 servers could be powered down</a> (assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code), or a reduction of 49,000 tons of CO2 per year. Of course, it is a bit unfair to isolate Facebook here. Their servers are only a tiny fraction of computers deployed world-wide that are interpreting PHP code."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kensai7 writes " Recently , Facebook provided us with some information on their server park .
They use about 30,000 servers , and not surprisingly , most of them are running PHP code to generate pages full of social info for their users .
As they only say that 'the bulk ' is running PHP , let 's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000 .
If C + + would have been used instead of PHP , then 22,500 servers could be powered down ( assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C + + versus PHP code ) , or a reduction of 49,000 tons of CO2 per year .
Of course , it is a bit unfair to isolate Facebook here .
Their servers are only a tiny fraction of computers deployed world-wide that are interpreting PHP code .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kensai7 writes "Recently, Facebook provided us with some information on their server park.
They use about 30,000 servers, and not surprisingly, most of them are running PHP code to generate pages full of social info for their users.
As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, let's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000.
If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down (assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code), or a reduction of 49,000 tons of CO2 per year.
Of course, it is a bit unfair to isolate Facebook here.
Their servers are only a tiny fraction of computers deployed world-wide that are interpreting PHP code.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505074</id>
	<title>An architectural perspective</title>
	<author>GeorgeFairbanks</author>
	<datestamp>1261334340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, a few helpful links:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://www.infoq.com/resource/presentations/Facebook-Software-Stack/en/slides/6.swf" title="infoq.com" rel="nofollow">Facebook architecture overview</a> [infoq.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Facebook-Software-Stack" title="infoq.com" rel="nofollow">Facebook architecture presentation by Aditya Agarwal</a> [infoq.com] </li><li> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's\_law" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Amdahl's law</a> [wikipedia.org] </li><li> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note\_id=16121578919" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">Facebook uses many Hadoop nodes</a> [facebook.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.dbms2.com/2009/05/11/facebook-hadoop-and-hive/" title="dbms2.com" rel="nofollow">Facebook has 2nd largest Hadoop cluster</a> [dbms2.com] </li></ul><p>Amdahl's law says that if Facebook were to switch from PHP to C++, the best possible improvement in the overall processing time is proportional to the total time spent in PHP now.  If PHP processing accounts for 90\% of the time and they reduce that to zero, they'd have a 10x speedup.  However, if it accounts for 10\% of the time and they reduce it to zero, they'd have about a 10\% speedup.</p><p>So, the question is:  How much time (overall) is spent in PHP processing?  My guess is not very much.  As other posters have pointed out, there are disk accesses and MySQL.  And quite a bit is cached in Memcached.</p><p>The original article is slashdotted now, so I'm not sure if it says what those 30k servers are doing, but Facebook has more than just PHP running.  Perhaps a thousand of those servers are running Hadoop, probably calculating the social network.</p><p>From an architectural perspective, it probably does not make sense for them to optimize for processing speed (i.e., switch PHP to C++) if their performance is acceptable.  That's because they face larger risks:  modifiability and time to market pressures.  They may worry that switching to a statically typed language (such as C++, but Java would be similar) would make new feature development slower.  If they could have both, great, but these two quality attributes often trade off against each other.  A design with better performance may hinder modifiability, and vice versa.</p><p>I don't mean to start a language war -- I'm speaking broadly about the idea that dynamically typed languages (PHP, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...) yield programs that are faster to write and modify compared to statically typed languages (C, C++, Java).  You may disagree with that generalization, but you may agree that others think it is true, and are therefore acting rationally if they choose a dynamic language when they want modifiability.</p><p>Disclaimers:  I knew Aditya in school but haven't spoken to him about Facebook; I am writing a <a href="http://rhinoresearch.com/book" title="rhinoresearch.com" rel="nofollow">book on software architecture</a> [rhinoresearch.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , a few helpful links : Facebook architecture overview [ infoq.com ] Facebook architecture presentation by Aditya Agarwal [ infoq.com ] Amdahl 's law [ wikipedia.org ] Facebook uses many Hadoop nodes [ facebook.com ] Facebook has 2nd largest Hadoop cluster [ dbms2.com ] Amdahl 's law says that if Facebook were to switch from PHP to C + + , the best possible improvement in the overall processing time is proportional to the total time spent in PHP now .
If PHP processing accounts for 90 \ % of the time and they reduce that to zero , they 'd have a 10x speedup .
However , if it accounts for 10 \ % of the time and they reduce it to zero , they 'd have about a 10 \ % speedup.So , the question is : How much time ( overall ) is spent in PHP processing ?
My guess is not very much .
As other posters have pointed out , there are disk accesses and MySQL .
And quite a bit is cached in Memcached.The original article is slashdotted now , so I 'm not sure if it says what those 30k servers are doing , but Facebook has more than just PHP running .
Perhaps a thousand of those servers are running Hadoop , probably calculating the social network.From an architectural perspective , it probably does not make sense for them to optimize for processing speed ( i.e. , switch PHP to C + + ) if their performance is acceptable .
That 's because they face larger risks : modifiability and time to market pressures .
They may worry that switching to a statically typed language ( such as C + + , but Java would be similar ) would make new feature development slower .
If they could have both , great , but these two quality attributes often trade off against each other .
A design with better performance may hinder modifiability , and vice versa.I do n't mean to start a language war -- I 'm speaking broadly about the idea that dynamically typed languages ( PHP , Smalltalk , Ruby , Python , ... ) yield programs that are faster to write and modify compared to statically typed languages ( C , C + + , Java ) .
You may disagree with that generalization , but you may agree that others think it is true , and are therefore acting rationally if they choose a dynamic language when they want modifiability.Disclaimers : I knew Aditya in school but have n't spoken to him about Facebook ; I am writing a book on software architecture [ rhinoresearch.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, a few helpful links: Facebook architecture overview [infoq.com]  Facebook architecture presentation by Aditya Agarwal [infoq.com]  Amdahl's law [wikipedia.org]  Facebook uses many Hadoop nodes [facebook.com]  Facebook has 2nd largest Hadoop cluster [dbms2.com] Amdahl's law says that if Facebook were to switch from PHP to C++, the best possible improvement in the overall processing time is proportional to the total time spent in PHP now.
If PHP processing accounts for 90\% of the time and they reduce that to zero, they'd have a 10x speedup.
However, if it accounts for 10\% of the time and they reduce it to zero, they'd have about a 10\% speedup.So, the question is:  How much time (overall) is spent in PHP processing?
My guess is not very much.
As other posters have pointed out, there are disk accesses and MySQL.
And quite a bit is cached in Memcached.The original article is slashdotted now, so I'm not sure if it says what those 30k servers are doing, but Facebook has more than just PHP running.
Perhaps a thousand of those servers are running Hadoop, probably calculating the social network.From an architectural perspective, it probably does not make sense for them to optimize for processing speed (i.e., switch PHP to C++) if their performance is acceptable.
That's because they face larger risks:  modifiability and time to market pressures.
They may worry that switching to a statically typed language (such as C++, but Java would be similar) would make new feature development slower.
If they could have both, great, but these two quality attributes often trade off against each other.
A design with better performance may hinder modifiability, and vice versa.I don't mean to start a language war -- I'm speaking broadly about the idea that dynamically typed languages (PHP, Smalltalk, Ruby, Python, ...) yield programs that are faster to write and modify compared to statically typed languages (C, C++, Java).
You may disagree with that generalization, but you may agree that others think it is true, and are therefore acting rationally if they choose a dynamic language when they want modifiability.Disclaimers:  I knew Aditya in school but haven't spoken to him about Facebook; I am writing a book on software architecture [rhinoresearch.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505028</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Most time is usually spent generating pages: the Wikipedia <a href="http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Server\_roles" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">server role</a> [wikimedia.org] page shows it clearly.</p><blockquote><div><p>He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops, math that type of crap</p></div></blockquote><p>Yeah, statistics, they are all lies if they don't support my current opinions<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;). <a href="http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&amp;lang=gpp&amp;lang2=php" title="debian.org" rel="nofollow">See for yourself</a> [debian.org]. PHP is between 3 to 116 times slower than C++.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Most time is usually spent generating pages : the Wikipedia server role [ wikimedia.org ] page shows it clearly.He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops , math that type of crapYeah , statistics , they are all lies if they do n't support my current opinions ; ) .
See for yourself [ debian.org ] .
PHP is between 3 to 116 times slower than C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Most time is usually spent generating pages: the Wikipedia server role [wikimedia.org] page shows it clearly.He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops, math that type of crapYeah, statistics, they are all lies if they don't support my current opinions ;).
See for yourself [debian.org].
PHP is between 3 to 116 times slower than C++.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504612</id>
	<title>Re:it's stoopid because</title>
	<author>Galactic Dominator</author>
	<datestamp>1261330740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You excrete shit as well.  I suppose that sewage pond known as your mom's basement isn't polluted either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You excrete shit as well .
I suppose that sewage pond known as your mom 's basement is n't polluted either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You excrete shit as well.
I suppose that sewage pond known as your mom's basement isn't polluted either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504760</id>
	<title>This is stupid</title>
	<author>Fnkmaster</author>
	<datestamp>1261331880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Companies use PHP to develop and run web app functionality because it saves them huge amounts of time and money over rolling out the same thing if you were to write it all in C++.  Realize what the cost structure of a company like Facebook is - the amount they pay their engineers, marketing personnel, and so on is significantly more than their amortized server expenses and server operating expenses (including energy costs, etc.).</p><p>Furthermore, the 10x speedup assumption seems ridiculous - how much time is spent on their server in compute-intensive PHP loops where huge gains would be made from switching to C++?  And how much of the "code" is really database queries of various sorts? Furthermore, you can generally isolate small areas like that in your codebase and rewrite them as modules in C or C++ to be invoked from PHP land - and if they could easily cut their server expenses even in half (let alone by 90\%) by having a few engineers spend a few weeks rewriting some components, don't you imagine they've probably set about doing that already?</p><p>Re-casting a discussion in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or energy use doesn't change any of this - saving energy generally means saving money, unless it takes more expensive resources (such as 100s of humans, who have to spend hundreds of months re-writing code in C++, while they, their families, and dependents emit tons upon tons of greenhouse gases, use electricity, buy groceries, and so-on and so-forth).  The cheapest solution certainly isn't always the most environmentally friendly solution (such as when negative externalities are involved - lower labor and pollution standards in China, for example, that make a less "green" product manufactured there less costly in the US), but a vastly more expensive solution that no company in its right mind would implement isn't necessarily greener just because it might save some electricity and a few servers once it was implemented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Companies use PHP to develop and run web app functionality because it saves them huge amounts of time and money over rolling out the same thing if you were to write it all in C + + .
Realize what the cost structure of a company like Facebook is - the amount they pay their engineers , marketing personnel , and so on is significantly more than their amortized server expenses and server operating expenses ( including energy costs , etc .
) .Furthermore , the 10x speedup assumption seems ridiculous - how much time is spent on their server in compute-intensive PHP loops where huge gains would be made from switching to C + + ?
And how much of the " code " is really database queries of various sorts ?
Furthermore , you can generally isolate small areas like that in your codebase and rewrite them as modules in C or C + + to be invoked from PHP land - and if they could easily cut their server expenses even in half ( let alone by 90 \ % ) by having a few engineers spend a few weeks rewriting some components , do n't you imagine they 've probably set about doing that already ? Re-casting a discussion in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or energy use does n't change any of this - saving energy generally means saving money , unless it takes more expensive resources ( such as 100s of humans , who have to spend hundreds of months re-writing code in C + + , while they , their families , and dependents emit tons upon tons of greenhouse gases , use electricity , buy groceries , and so-on and so-forth ) .
The cheapest solution certainly is n't always the most environmentally friendly solution ( such as when negative externalities are involved - lower labor and pollution standards in China , for example , that make a less " green " product manufactured there less costly in the US ) , but a vastly more expensive solution that no company in its right mind would implement is n't necessarily greener just because it might save some electricity and a few servers once it was implemented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Companies use PHP to develop and run web app functionality because it saves them huge amounts of time and money over rolling out the same thing if you were to write it all in C++.
Realize what the cost structure of a company like Facebook is - the amount they pay their engineers, marketing personnel, and so on is significantly more than their amortized server expenses and server operating expenses (including energy costs, etc.
).Furthermore, the 10x speedup assumption seems ridiculous - how much time is spent on their server in compute-intensive PHP loops where huge gains would be made from switching to C++?
And how much of the "code" is really database queries of various sorts?
Furthermore, you can generally isolate small areas like that in your codebase and rewrite them as modules in C or C++ to be invoked from PHP land - and if they could easily cut their server expenses even in half (let alone by 90\%) by having a few engineers spend a few weeks rewriting some components, don't you imagine they've probably set about doing that already?Re-casting a discussion in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or energy use doesn't change any of this - saving energy generally means saving money, unless it takes more expensive resources (such as 100s of humans, who have to spend hundreds of months re-writing code in C++, while they, their families, and dependents emit tons upon tons of greenhouse gases, use electricity, buy groceries, and so-on and so-forth).
The cheapest solution certainly isn't always the most environmentally friendly solution (such as when negative externalities are involved - lower labor and pollution standards in China, for example, that make a less "green" product manufactured there less costly in the US), but a vastly more expensive solution that no company in its right mind would implement isn't necessarily greener just because it might save some electricity and a few servers once it was implemented.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506326</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261301220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's a ridiculous way to analyze it. What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?</p> </div><p>It's definitely on the same scale as of running tens of thousands servers for years, right? I mean C++ is complex shit, need to <i>compile</i>, wtf is that? How are the people with ADHD supposed to write code?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a ridiculous way to analyze it .
What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C + + ?
It 's definitely on the same scale as of running tens of thousands servers for years , right ?
I mean C + + is complex shit , need to compile , wtf is that ?
How are the people with ADHD supposed to write code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a ridiculous way to analyze it.
What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?
It's definitely on the same scale as of running tens of thousands servers for years, right?
I mean C++ is complex shit, need to compile, wtf is that?
How are the people with ADHD supposed to write code?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505162</id>
	<title>Environmental concern or personal agenda?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to me like the poster has an axe to grind against PHP in general.</p><p>Even if you accept the "conservative" estimate of C++ being 10 times as efficient as PHP, you are still blindly assuming that each of their 30k servers is CPU bound.      I find it just as plausible that memory, bandwidth, and/or storage are the limiting factors.</p><p>Don't let a lack of facts stop you from using the "environment" to drive your agenda though, it doesn't seem to stop anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to me like the poster has an axe to grind against PHP in general.Even if you accept the " conservative " estimate of C + + being 10 times as efficient as PHP , you are still blindly assuming that each of their 30k servers is CPU bound .
I find it just as plausible that memory , bandwidth , and/or storage are the limiting factors.Do n't let a lack of facts stop you from using the " environment " to drive your agenda though , it does n't seem to stop anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to me like the poster has an axe to grind against PHP in general.Even if you accept the "conservative" estimate of C++ being 10 times as efficient as PHP, you are still blindly assuming that each of their 30k servers is CPU bound.
I find it just as plausible that memory, bandwidth, and/or storage are the limiting factors.Don't let a lack of facts stop you from using the "environment" to drive your agenda though, it doesn't seem to stop anyone else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504690</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. The bottleneck for most modern webapps is database access. Database adapters are usually written in C already. In addition Apache/PHP has been standard for many years and the query/page/memory caching, load balancing, clustering, and hot-fail-over systems that work with LAMP have been extensively tested and optimized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
The bottleneck for most modern webapps is database access .
Database adapters are usually written in C already .
In addition Apache/PHP has been standard for many years and the query/page/memory caching , load balancing , clustering , and hot-fail-over systems that work with LAMP have been extensively tested and optimized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
The bottleneck for most modern webapps is database access.
Database adapters are usually written in C already.
In addition Apache/PHP has been standard for many years and the query/page/memory caching, load balancing, clustering, and hot-fail-over systems that work with LAMP have been extensively tested and optimized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504728</id>
	<title>Completely Myopic and One-dimensional Thinking</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1261331640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sadly I couldn't RTFA because of the good old Slashdot effect but the concept that efficiency can be determined by a direct correlation to performance metrics is just wrong.
<br> <br>
For the sake of argument I'll confine my examples of why I believe this thinking is flawed to just the language vs language issue and not bring in any network, database, etc. issues.  First, how many more computer hours did it take to build in C++ than PHP?  Second if you build like for like functionality in C++ at a given point in time it probably isn't as flexible and maintainable so all maintenance takes longer.  Now lets assume you do things "right" and build in all sorts of flexibility and  injection points eventually you end up building a higher level abstraction (or perhaps even an full interpreted language) which has the same issues as PHP regarding performance.
<br> <br>The reason you accept performance declines associated with higher level abstractions is that it allows you to do more in a shorter amount of time at a still reasonable performance level and anyone who doesn't understand that and all the impacts of that certainly can't produce a legitimate analysis of power consumption based on languages.  If the author really believes this he should program everything in assembly or even better build specialty hardware for every computing task or better yet simply quit using computers or electricity all together, that will definitely have a bigger impact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly I could n't RTFA because of the good old Slashdot effect but the concept that efficiency can be determined by a direct correlation to performance metrics is just wrong .
For the sake of argument I 'll confine my examples of why I believe this thinking is flawed to just the language vs language issue and not bring in any network , database , etc .
issues. First , how many more computer hours did it take to build in C + + than PHP ?
Second if you build like for like functionality in C + + at a given point in time it probably is n't as flexible and maintainable so all maintenance takes longer .
Now lets assume you do things " right " and build in all sorts of flexibility and injection points eventually you end up building a higher level abstraction ( or perhaps even an full interpreted language ) which has the same issues as PHP regarding performance .
The reason you accept performance declines associated with higher level abstractions is that it allows you to do more in a shorter amount of time at a still reasonable performance level and anyone who does n't understand that and all the impacts of that certainly ca n't produce a legitimate analysis of power consumption based on languages .
If the author really believes this he should program everything in assembly or even better build specialty hardware for every computing task or better yet simply quit using computers or electricity all together , that will definitely have a bigger impact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly I couldn't RTFA because of the good old Slashdot effect but the concept that efficiency can be determined by a direct correlation to performance metrics is just wrong.
For the sake of argument I'll confine my examples of why I believe this thinking is flawed to just the language vs language issue and not bring in any network, database, etc.
issues.  First, how many more computer hours did it take to build in C++ than PHP?
Second if you build like for like functionality in C++ at a given point in time it probably isn't as flexible and maintainable so all maintenance takes longer.
Now lets assume you do things "right" and build in all sorts of flexibility and  injection points eventually you end up building a higher level abstraction (or perhaps even an full interpreted language) which has the same issues as PHP regarding performance.
The reason you accept performance declines associated with higher level abstractions is that it allows you to do more in a shorter amount of time at a still reasonable performance level and anyone who doesn't understand that and all the impacts of that certainly can't produce a legitimate analysis of power consumption based on languages.
If the author really believes this he should program everything in assembly or even better build specialty hardware for every computing task or better yet simply quit using computers or electricity all together, that will definitely have a bigger impact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506396</id>
	<title>Re:The REAL solution</title>
	<author>arndawg</author>
	<datestamp>1261301820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm hearing faxing is pretty hot these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm hearing faxing is pretty hot these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm hearing faxing is pretty hot these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505038</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1261334100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No the environmental impact would be a lot less. Facebook would need a lot fewer servers if they used C++, but not for the reasons stated in the article.<br><br>If facebook wrote everything in C++, the millions of people would still be using myspace and friendster, because the facebook team would still be busy writing and debugging.<br><br>The very many lines of PHP code at Facebook aren't going to be easily replaced by something with far fewer lines of C++. If you think it's easy, go ahead and reproduce Facebook's functionality using C++, let me know when you're done.<br><br>I don't like PHP, but there are very many good reasons to use a higher level language than C++.<br><br>Yes, there are very good and very productive C++ programmers. But only a few of them. And there's a limit to how fast they can write code.<br><br>So what wise people do is have them write stuff for the other programmers to use. You don't make the "normal" programmers write C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No the environmental impact would be a lot less .
Facebook would need a lot fewer servers if they used C + + , but not for the reasons stated in the article.If facebook wrote everything in C + + , the millions of people would still be using myspace and friendster , because the facebook team would still be busy writing and debugging.The very many lines of PHP code at Facebook are n't going to be easily replaced by something with far fewer lines of C + + .
If you think it 's easy , go ahead and reproduce Facebook 's functionality using C + + , let me know when you 're done.I do n't like PHP , but there are very many good reasons to use a higher level language than C + + .Yes , there are very good and very productive C + + programmers .
But only a few of them .
And there 's a limit to how fast they can write code.So what wise people do is have them write stuff for the other programmers to use .
You do n't make the " normal " programmers write C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No the environmental impact would be a lot less.
Facebook would need a lot fewer servers if they used C++, but not for the reasons stated in the article.If facebook wrote everything in C++, the millions of people would still be using myspace and friendster, because the facebook team would still be busy writing and debugging.The very many lines of PHP code at Facebook aren't going to be easily replaced by something with far fewer lines of C++.
If you think it's easy, go ahead and reproduce Facebook's functionality using C++, let me know when you're done.I don't like PHP, but there are very many good reasons to use a higher level language than C++.Yes, there are very good and very productive C++ programmers.
But only a few of them.
And there's a limit to how fast they can write code.So what wise people do is have them write stuff for the other programmers to use.
You don't make the "normal" programmers write C++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504938</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>mebrahim</author>
	<datestamp>1261333200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dynamic languages are not as compilable as static ones. They are at best compiled into an intermediate form (usually called bytecode) which is run by some virtual machine. I guess PHP accelerators work this way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dynamic languages are not as compilable as static ones .
They are at best compiled into an intermediate form ( usually called bytecode ) which is run by some virtual machine .
I guess PHP accelerators work this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dynamic languages are not as compilable as static ones.
They are at best compiled into an intermediate form (usually called bytecode) which is run by some virtual machine.
I guess PHP accelerators work this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506564</id>
	<title>Would C++ Actually Be That Much Faster?</title>
	<author>tokki</author>
	<datestamp>1261303200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A site like Facebook isn't computing the value of pi or calculating jump coordinates for the Galactica, things that would benefit from a more efficient implementation.  I don't know anything about Facebook's site, but many web applications use the application layer to essentially pull data from and send data to databases.  Parsing data back and forth typically isn't sped up with C++ or even C that much compared to PHP.  All many PHP sites do is draw HTML, and a lot of SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE queries.  Hard to imagine C++ having a big impact on that, certainly not 10:1.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A site like Facebook is n't computing the value of pi or calculating jump coordinates for the Galactica , things that would benefit from a more efficient implementation .
I do n't know anything about Facebook 's site , but many web applications use the application layer to essentially pull data from and send data to databases .
Parsing data back and forth typically is n't sped up with C + + or even C that much compared to PHP .
All many PHP sites do is draw HTML , and a lot of SELECT , INSERT , UPDATE , and DELETE queries .
Hard to imagine C + + having a big impact on that , certainly not 10 : 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A site like Facebook isn't computing the value of pi or calculating jump coordinates for the Galactica, things that would benefit from a more efficient implementation.
I don't know anything about Facebook's site, but many web applications use the application layer to essentially pull data from and send data to databases.
Parsing data back and forth typically isn't sped up with C++ or even C that much compared to PHP.
All many PHP sites do is draw HTML, and a lot of SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, and DELETE queries.
Hard to imagine C++ having a big impact on that, certainly not 10:1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504220</id>
	<title>php is bad for the environment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the more reason to use perl!

notcop</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the more reason to use perl !
notcop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the more reason to use perl!
notcop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506832</id>
	<title>This story is advertising bate.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1261306020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story makes assumptions on system architecture that point blank would just not be true in a large scale deployment.</p><p>Sure C++ is more efficient that PHP.  But where does it say that EVERYTHING or even most is served via a php interpreter.  In a large scale world dynamic caches and CDN's would have offloaded all of the cachable content and it would have never hit the php interpreter.  Guess what a C++, Java, anything else env would do exactly the same thing.</p><p>You would be amazed at how much off load is possible.  What you think is dynamic content is usually just a very simplistic dynamic wrapper over large swaths of static content. A seemingly dynamic html is really just a collection of static html blobs that can be held by a cache or CDN close to the consumer and assumbled as a complete html document on the fly by an web aware accelerator.</p><p>These 30,000 boxes that are spoken of are most likely composed of a large verity of purpose specific hardware.  Where the purposes are much more diverse than a simple php / mysql combo's.  Lets face it.  Face book is across the planet and is relatively speedy all across the planet.  This implies that a distributed CDN is in place.  With local content caching nearest the consumer.  Instantly this means we have more purposes than just php/mysql for the hardware.  Authentication is usually offloaded by large scale web shops for a host of reasons.  So lets add that kit to the list of purpose built.  I could go on and on about the various purposes.</p><p>So it's fairly obvious that the statement we could shut off 22K+ worth of machines by simply ( nothing simple about this ) changing languages is just non-sense.</p><p>Plane and simple a large scale web environment is only partially the application hosting equipment.  A very large part of the environment is the infrastructure, network, CDN, Caches, accelerators, security,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... equipment.   Yes I can write a little fancy web app and run it on my netbook and wow people.  It's a whole other matter to scale that up to 10's of millions of concurrent users spread across the planet.</p><p>Lets face it.  That amount of equipment consumes one hell of a power bill.  I'm positive that "Facebook" has already done an enormous amount of work to reduce that bill.  Not for save the planet reasons but for simple dollar reasons.  Can they do more.  Absolutely.  But it won't be a simple we'll just change everything over to this new language this weekend and then hit a bunch of power switches.  The amount of power consumed by the massive development work force to write test document deploy this new wonder solution would probably leave "Facebook" in an energy debt for another several years.</p><p>PS.  Good luck with that sales pitch if you ever make it near the office doors of facebook.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story makes assumptions on system architecture that point blank would just not be true in a large scale deployment.Sure C + + is more efficient that PHP .
But where does it say that EVERYTHING or even most is served via a php interpreter .
In a large scale world dynamic caches and CDN 's would have offloaded all of the cachable content and it would have never hit the php interpreter .
Guess what a C + + , Java , anything else env would do exactly the same thing.You would be amazed at how much off load is possible .
What you think is dynamic content is usually just a very simplistic dynamic wrapper over large swaths of static content .
A seemingly dynamic html is really just a collection of static html blobs that can be held by a cache or CDN close to the consumer and assumbled as a complete html document on the fly by an web aware accelerator.These 30,000 boxes that are spoken of are most likely composed of a large verity of purpose specific hardware .
Where the purposes are much more diverse than a simple php / mysql combo 's .
Lets face it .
Face book is across the planet and is relatively speedy all across the planet .
This implies that a distributed CDN is in place .
With local content caching nearest the consumer .
Instantly this means we have more purposes than just php/mysql for the hardware .
Authentication is usually offloaded by large scale web shops for a host of reasons .
So lets add that kit to the list of purpose built .
I could go on and on about the various purposes.So it 's fairly obvious that the statement we could shut off 22K + worth of machines by simply ( nothing simple about this ) changing languages is just non-sense.Plane and simple a large scale web environment is only partially the application hosting equipment .
A very large part of the environment is the infrastructure , network , CDN , Caches , accelerators , security , .... equipment. Yes I can write a little fancy web app and run it on my netbook and wow people .
It 's a whole other matter to scale that up to 10 's of millions of concurrent users spread across the planet.Lets face it .
That amount of equipment consumes one hell of a power bill .
I 'm positive that " Facebook " has already done an enormous amount of work to reduce that bill .
Not for save the planet reasons but for simple dollar reasons .
Can they do more .
Absolutely. But it wo n't be a simple we 'll just change everything over to this new language this weekend and then hit a bunch of power switches .
The amount of power consumed by the massive development work force to write test document deploy this new wonder solution would probably leave " Facebook " in an energy debt for another several years.PS .
Good luck with that sales pitch if you ever make it near the office doors of facebook .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story makes assumptions on system architecture that point blank would just not be true in a large scale deployment.Sure C++ is more efficient that PHP.
But where does it say that EVERYTHING or even most is served via a php interpreter.
In a large scale world dynamic caches and CDN's would have offloaded all of the cachable content and it would have never hit the php interpreter.
Guess what a C++, Java, anything else env would do exactly the same thing.You would be amazed at how much off load is possible.
What you think is dynamic content is usually just a very simplistic dynamic wrapper over large swaths of static content.
A seemingly dynamic html is really just a collection of static html blobs that can be held by a cache or CDN close to the consumer and assumbled as a complete html document on the fly by an web aware accelerator.These 30,000 boxes that are spoken of are most likely composed of a large verity of purpose specific hardware.
Where the purposes are much more diverse than a simple php / mysql combo's.
Lets face it.
Face book is across the planet and is relatively speedy all across the planet.
This implies that a distributed CDN is in place.
With local content caching nearest the consumer.
Instantly this means we have more purposes than just php/mysql for the hardware.
Authentication is usually offloaded by large scale web shops for a host of reasons.
So lets add that kit to the list of purpose built.
I could go on and on about the various purposes.So it's fairly obvious that the statement we could shut off 22K+ worth of machines by simply ( nothing simple about this ) changing languages is just non-sense.Plane and simple a large scale web environment is only partially the application hosting equipment.
A very large part of the environment is the infrastructure, network, CDN, Caches, accelerators, security, .... equipment.   Yes I can write a little fancy web app and run it on my netbook and wow people.
It's a whole other matter to scale that up to 10's of millions of concurrent users spread across the planet.Lets face it.
That amount of equipment consumes one hell of a power bill.
I'm positive that "Facebook" has already done an enormous amount of work to reduce that bill.
Not for save the planet reasons but for simple dollar reasons.
Can they do more.
Absolutely.  But it won't be a simple we'll just change everything over to this new language this weekend and then hit a bunch of power switches.
The amount of power consumed by the massive development work force to write test document deploy this new wonder solution would probably leave "Facebook" in an energy debt for another several years.PS.
Good luck with that sales pitch if you ever make it near the office doors of facebook.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30520184</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261414020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are there any languages other than C and assembly language that suffer from string buffer overflow problems?  C++ certainly doesn't, not if you use any kind of C++ string library, and one would of course be insane to write non-trivial C++ code without one.  That is why no one does.</p><p>One of the things that shocks me is that parsing to bytecode is considered a major performance optimization in the PHP world.  Every BASIC interpreter in the world did that thirty years ago, on machines with less than 16K of RAM.  Otherwise useful programs wouldn't fit in memory, to say nothing of running at a non-glacial speed. Can't throw cycles away when dealing with a 1 Mhz CPU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there any languages other than C and assembly language that suffer from string buffer overflow problems ?
C + + certainly does n't , not if you use any kind of C + + string library , and one would of course be insane to write non-trivial C + + code without one .
That is why no one does.One of the things that shocks me is that parsing to bytecode is considered a major performance optimization in the PHP world .
Every BASIC interpreter in the world did that thirty years ago , on machines with less than 16K of RAM .
Otherwise useful programs would n't fit in memory , to say nothing of running at a non-glacial speed .
Ca n't throw cycles away when dealing with a 1 Mhz CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there any languages other than C and assembly language that suffer from string buffer overflow problems?
C++ certainly doesn't, not if you use any kind of C++ string library, and one would of course be insane to write non-trivial C++ code without one.
That is why no one does.One of the things that shocks me is that parsing to bytecode is considered a major performance optimization in the PHP world.
Every BASIC interpreter in the world did that thirty years ago, on machines with less than 16K of RAM.
Otherwise useful programs wouldn't fit in memory, to say nothing of running at a non-glacial speed.
Can't throw cycles away when dealing with a 1 Mhz CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513104</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1261416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best programming language in the world will not solve the problem of poor programmers and poor coding practices.</p></div><p>In my experience, the problem is more often due to inept hit and run management getting into a project, causing chaos among the dev teams, and then bailing for a new job or a promotion before the full harmful effects of their meddling become apparent. For example, they may "trim the fat" from the schedule without realizing that they have completely ruined the system by forcing premature release with abbreviated testing (i.e. the customers can do the testing so we don't have to worry about that now) or perhaps they insist upon a certain sub-optimal technology being used without understanding the implications or just to be "buzzword compliant". These poor decisions often have a ripple effect throughout the entire project, completely overshadowing any redeeming features that might have otherwise averted a complete disaster. These managers believe that their oh-so-smart MBA degree certifies them to contribute to anything, including software development, with superior results when in fact it only certifies their stupidity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best programming language in the world will not solve the problem of poor programmers and poor coding practices.In my experience , the problem is more often due to inept hit and run management getting into a project , causing chaos among the dev teams , and then bailing for a new job or a promotion before the full harmful effects of their meddling become apparent .
For example , they may " trim the fat " from the schedule without realizing that they have completely ruined the system by forcing premature release with abbreviated testing ( i.e .
the customers can do the testing so we do n't have to worry about that now ) or perhaps they insist upon a certain sub-optimal technology being used without understanding the implications or just to be " buzzword compliant " .
These poor decisions often have a ripple effect throughout the entire project , completely overshadowing any redeeming features that might have otherwise averted a complete disaster .
These managers believe that their oh-so-smart MBA degree certifies them to contribute to anything , including software development , with superior results when in fact it only certifies their stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best programming language in the world will not solve the problem of poor programmers and poor coding practices.In my experience, the problem is more often due to inept hit and run management getting into a project, causing chaos among the dev teams, and then bailing for a new job or a promotion before the full harmful effects of their meddling become apparent.
For example, they may "trim the fat" from the schedule without realizing that they have completely ruined the system by forcing premature release with abbreviated testing (i.e.
the customers can do the testing so we don't have to worry about that now) or perhaps they insist upon a certain sub-optimal technology being used without understanding the implications or just to be "buzzword compliant".
These poor decisions often have a ripple effect throughout the entire project, completely overshadowing any redeeming features that might have otherwise averted a complete disaster.
These managers believe that their oh-so-smart MBA degree certifies them to contribute to anything, including software development, with superior results when in fact it only certifies their stupidity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509810</id>
	<title>How to really cut down on the CO2 Emissions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how much would CO2 emissions be reduced if people just stopped fucking wasting their time Facebook and MySpace?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how much would CO2 emissions be reduced if people just stopped fucking wasting their time Facebook and MySpace ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how much would CO2 emissions be reduced if people just stopped fucking wasting their time Facebook and MySpace?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1261330260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use it because I can code up relatively fast, relatively secure dynamic websites in a very short amount of time. I can install it on a webserver in seconds and it integrates beautifully with Apache and MySQL. Maybe there is a better solution out there, but PHP has always done what I need it to and I've never had a problem with it. It's never given me a reason to look elsewhere.</p><p>What I don't understand is all of the PHP-haters out there. Really, who cares if it is "the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl"? Isn't the proper measure of a tool if it does what you need it to and not who else uses it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use it because I can code up relatively fast , relatively secure dynamic websites in a very short amount of time .
I can install it on a webserver in seconds and it integrates beautifully with Apache and MySQL .
Maybe there is a better solution out there , but PHP has always done what I need it to and I 've never had a problem with it .
It 's never given me a reason to look elsewhere.What I do n't understand is all of the PHP-haters out there .
Really , who cares if it is " the script kiddie 's substitute for cgi-perl " ?
Is n't the proper measure of a tool if it does what you need it to and not who else uses it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use it because I can code up relatively fast, relatively secure dynamic websites in a very short amount of time.
I can install it on a webserver in seconds and it integrates beautifully with Apache and MySQL.
Maybe there is a better solution out there, but PHP has always done what I need it to and I've never had a problem with it.
It's never given me a reason to look elsewhere.What I don't understand is all of the PHP-haters out there.
Really, who cares if it is "the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl"?
Isn't the proper measure of a tool if it does what you need it to and not who else uses it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506856</id>
	<title>Coding C++,savings would be due to the 2015 launch</title>
	<author>D4C5CE</author>
	<datestamp>1261306200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their decision for using PHP might have to do with being able to get <b>their</b> business up and running <b>now</b> using PHP rather than envisaging go-live a few years down the road with <b>their</b> developer resources and learning curve adjusted to C++ (which in all its well-deserved glory does take its time to master). Probably C's savings in power don't outweigh PHP's savings in manpower.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their decision for using PHP might have to do with being able to get their business up and running now using PHP rather than envisaging go-live a few years down the road with their developer resources and learning curve adjusted to C + + ( which in all its well-deserved glory does take its time to master ) .
Probably C 's savings in power do n't outweigh PHP 's savings in manpower .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their decision for using PHP might have to do with being able to get their business up and running now using PHP rather than envisaging go-live a few years down the road with their developer resources and learning curve adjusted to C++ (which in all its well-deserved glory does take its time to master).
Probably C's savings in power don't outweigh PHP's savings in manpower.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507678</id>
	<title>Fart vs PHP</title>
	<author>Ego\_and\_his\_own</author>
	<datestamp>1261313700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I did know that I will find it:
"The average person farts 12-18 times a day, producing about 45 mL of CO2 and 45 mL of CH4 per day, or 16.43L of CO2 and 12.78L of CH4 per year." Source:http://envirostats.digitalcitizen.ca/2007/07/19/0172/

Here is interesting part:
"At Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), 1 kg CO2 is 509.1L, so the 284.9L per year is only 0.560 kg CO2 per year.

This is less than the amount it takes to run your computer for a year (0.705 kg), and a tree would only have to spend 17 days per year &ldquo;sniffing&rdquo; the greenhouse gases in your farts all year to carbon neutralize it."

Considering that not evry peroson on world has computer ( and uses PHP) conclusion is not discussable.

Moderator are you one of people who always giggles when someone mention fart or similar word?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did know that I will find it : " The average person farts 12-18 times a day , producing about 45 mL of CO2 and 45 mL of CH4 per day , or 16.43L of CO2 and 12.78L of CH4 per year .
" Source : http : //envirostats.digitalcitizen.ca/2007/07/19/0172/ Here is interesting part : " At Standard Temperature and Pressure ( STP ) , 1 kg CO2 is 509.1L , so the 284.9L per year is only 0.560 kg CO2 per year .
This is less than the amount it takes to run your computer for a year ( 0.705 kg ) , and a tree would only have to spend 17 days per year    sniffing    the greenhouse gases in your farts all year to carbon neutralize it .
" Considering that not evry peroson on world has computer ( and uses PHP ) conclusion is not discussable .
Moderator are you one of people who always giggles when someone mention fart or similar word ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did know that I will find it:
"The average person farts 12-18 times a day, producing about 45 mL of CO2 and 45 mL of CH4 per day, or 16.43L of CO2 and 12.78L of CH4 per year.
" Source:http://envirostats.digitalcitizen.ca/2007/07/19/0172/

Here is interesting part:
"At Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP), 1 kg CO2 is 509.1L, so the 284.9L per year is only 0.560 kg CO2 per year.
This is less than the amount it takes to run your computer for a year (0.705 kg), and a tree would only have to spend 17 days per year “sniffing” the greenhouse gases in your farts all year to carbon neutralize it.
"

Considering that not evry peroson on world has computer ( and uses PHP) conclusion is not discussable.
Moderator are you one of people who always giggles when someone mention fart or similar word?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505462</id>
	<title>optimizing php</title>
	<author>itzdandy</author>
	<datestamp>1261337400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do some basic php development and really couldnt imagine having to do the same work in C++.  It would take so much more time it would make it nearly impossible to do.</p><p>so maybe its time to optimize php?  Perhaps do some hardware acceleration of php code with CUDA -or- maybe if just focus on the php interpreter and make it more efficient.</p><p>as with any scripting language, an un-optimized interpreter will run the script code an order of magnitude slower or worse than a pre-compiled program.</p><p>I have seen some comments that it isnt likely to cause such a different in server needs because it doesnt take into account I/O performance.  Well consider that everything must be bought with some sort of budget in mind then consider that a nice dual-quad core server will cost many thousands of dollars more than a single core2duo server.  a 2 socket 3ghz quad core with 24Ghz aggregate x the 10:1 ration means you need a single 2.4 cpu so a core2duo e8400 is actually worth twice the cpu power for pre-compiled code vs a dual quad core system running php.   The different is price could be spent on SSD disks or a faster SAS array and actually improve performance.</p><p>you can test this yourself by running a bash script to run 10,000 queries on a mysql database with the compiled mysql tools vs a php script to do the same thing (run on the command line) and then subtract the time the database took to return the data.  This is a very typical workload for php and it will lose this race everytime.</p><p>do I need to put some result here? no, do it yourself so you can see first hand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do some basic php development and really couldnt imagine having to do the same work in C + + .
It would take so much more time it would make it nearly impossible to do.so maybe its time to optimize php ?
Perhaps do some hardware acceleration of php code with CUDA -or- maybe if just focus on the php interpreter and make it more efficient.as with any scripting language , an un-optimized interpreter will run the script code an order of magnitude slower or worse than a pre-compiled program.I have seen some comments that it isnt likely to cause such a different in server needs because it doesnt take into account I/O performance .
Well consider that everything must be bought with some sort of budget in mind then consider that a nice dual-quad core server will cost many thousands of dollars more than a single core2duo server .
a 2 socket 3ghz quad core with 24Ghz aggregate x the 10 : 1 ration means you need a single 2.4 cpu so a core2duo e8400 is actually worth twice the cpu power for pre-compiled code vs a dual quad core system running php .
The different is price could be spent on SSD disks or a faster SAS array and actually improve performance.you can test this yourself by running a bash script to run 10,000 queries on a mysql database with the compiled mysql tools vs a php script to do the same thing ( run on the command line ) and then subtract the time the database took to return the data .
This is a very typical workload for php and it will lose this race everytime.do I need to put some result here ?
no , do it yourself so you can see first hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do some basic php development and really couldnt imagine having to do the same work in C++.
It would take so much more time it would make it nearly impossible to do.so maybe its time to optimize php?
Perhaps do some hardware acceleration of php code with CUDA -or- maybe if just focus on the php interpreter and make it more efficient.as with any scripting language, an un-optimized interpreter will run the script code an order of magnitude slower or worse than a pre-compiled program.I have seen some comments that it isnt likely to cause such a different in server needs because it doesnt take into account I/O performance.
Well consider that everything must be bought with some sort of budget in mind then consider that a nice dual-quad core server will cost many thousands of dollars more than a single core2duo server.
a 2 socket 3ghz quad core with 24Ghz aggregate x the 10:1 ration means you need a single 2.4 cpu so a core2duo e8400 is actually worth twice the cpu power for pre-compiled code vs a dual quad core system running php.
The different is price could be spent on SSD disks or a faster SAS array and actually improve performance.you can test this yourself by running a bash script to run 10,000 queries on a mysql database with the compiled mysql tools vs a php script to do the same thing (run on the command line) and then subtract the time the database took to return the data.
This is a very typical workload for php and it will lose this race everytime.do I need to put some result here?
no, do it yourself so you can see first hand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507400</id>
	<title>Your Hummer uses PHP.</title>
	<author>ElboRuum</author>
	<datestamp>1261310460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clear evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clear evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clear evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504484</id>
	<title>How about this comparison</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1261329780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Plain text vs. any web graphics. Who needs all that fancy graphics crap? If you can't get your message across with plain ASCII, then you are incompetent, lazy, and on the verge of being a mindless PowerPoint Ranger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plain text vs. any web graphics .
Who needs all that fancy graphics crap ?
If you ca n't get your message across with plain ASCII , then you are incompetent , lazy , and on the verge of being a mindless PowerPoint Ranger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plain text vs. any web graphics.
Who needs all that fancy graphics crap?
If you can't get your message across with plain ASCII, then you are incompetent, lazy, and on the verge of being a mindless PowerPoint Ranger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504566</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1261330440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because highly dynamic languages that do everything at runtime are not so easy to optimize at compile time. It is possible though to do all sorts of fancy things at runtime, such as with, for example, Java (though ironically Java is the exact opposite of this sort of language and doesn't really need it so much), and some traditionally purely interpreted languages like JavaScript have started getting snazzy JIT implementations these days. PHP wouldn't benefit from this sort of stuff too much as it's largely IO-bound in practice, and, as a few other users here have noted, most of the heavy lifting in PHP applications is done in databases which are most certainly not written in this sort of language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because highly dynamic languages that do everything at runtime are not so easy to optimize at compile time .
It is possible though to do all sorts of fancy things at runtime , such as with , for example , Java ( though ironically Java is the exact opposite of this sort of language and does n't really need it so much ) , and some traditionally purely interpreted languages like JavaScript have started getting snazzy JIT implementations these days .
PHP would n't benefit from this sort of stuff too much as it 's largely IO-bound in practice , and , as a few other users here have noted , most of the heavy lifting in PHP applications is done in databases which are most certainly not written in this sort of language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because highly dynamic languages that do everything at runtime are not so easy to optimize at compile time.
It is possible though to do all sorts of fancy things at runtime, such as with, for example, Java (though ironically Java is the exact opposite of this sort of language and doesn't really need it so much), and some traditionally purely interpreted languages like JavaScript have started getting snazzy JIT implementations these days.
PHP wouldn't benefit from this sort of stuff too much as it's largely IO-bound in practice, and, as a few other users here have noted, most of the heavy lifting in PHP applications is done in databases which are most certainly not written in this sort of language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505372</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was hired to do C++ code on a mature project.  The original coders were quite skilled.  The code was well commented, and the conventions used were (fairly) consistent.  The code itself was well-spaced and readable with descriptive variable names.</p><p>Personally, I think C++'s greatest failing is that it is too hard for most developers to do it well.  The greater difficulty is a consequence of its greater power; it gives developers a wider variety of options for performance optimization.  But it is hard.</p><p>Many software developers have pride issues.  They get really intimidated when they must work with someone who is authentically better than they are.  So they really, really don't like to admit that doing C++ properly is too hard for them.  Instead they will try to say that the language is flawed, and that other languages (which are less powerful and therefore easier to use) are actually, objectively, superior, and that using C++ is pretty much the wrong decision in any case.  Needless to say, I disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hired to do C + + code on a mature project .
The original coders were quite skilled .
The code was well commented , and the conventions used were ( fairly ) consistent .
The code itself was well-spaced and readable with descriptive variable names.Personally , I think C + + 's greatest failing is that it is too hard for most developers to do it well .
The greater difficulty is a consequence of its greater power ; it gives developers a wider variety of options for performance optimization .
But it is hard.Many software developers have pride issues .
They get really intimidated when they must work with someone who is authentically better than they are .
So they really , really do n't like to admit that doing C + + properly is too hard for them .
Instead they will try to say that the language is flawed , and that other languages ( which are less powerful and therefore easier to use ) are actually , objectively , superior , and that using C + + is pretty much the wrong decision in any case .
Needless to say , I disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hired to do C++ code on a mature project.
The original coders were quite skilled.
The code was well commented, and the conventions used were (fairly) consistent.
The code itself was well-spaced and readable with descriptive variable names.Personally, I think C++'s greatest failing is that it is too hard for most developers to do it well.
The greater difficulty is a consequence of its greater power; it gives developers a wider variety of options for performance optimization.
But it is hard.Many software developers have pride issues.
They get really intimidated when they must work with someone who is authentically better than they are.
So they really, really don't like to admit that doing C++ properly is too hard for them.
Instead they will try to say that the language is flawed, and that other languages (which are less powerful and therefore easier to use) are actually, objectively, superior, and that using C++ is pretty much the wrong decision in any case.
Needless to say, I disagree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506660</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261304280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is inciteful but shouldn't be modded down. PHP is responsible for some of the most retarded design decisions ever invented in web programming. (And this shitty injection-prone code is still out there and running.) Plus the whole 'accelerator' nonsense is solely because someone is trying to commercialize the language, it really should be built-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is inciteful but should n't be modded down .
PHP is responsible for some of the most retarded design decisions ever invented in web programming .
( And this shitty injection-prone code is still out there and running .
) Plus the whole 'accelerator ' nonsense is solely because someone is trying to commercialize the language , it really should be built-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is inciteful but shouldn't be modded down.
PHP is responsible for some of the most retarded design decisions ever invented in web programming.
(And this shitty injection-prone code is still out there and running.
) Plus the whole 'accelerator' nonsense is solely because someone is trying to commercialize the language, it really should be built-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504470</id>
	<title>What a fucked up "assumed" "conservative" ratio</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1261329720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah right serving a page out of cache in PHP takes ten times as long as C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right serving a page out of cache in PHP takes ten times as long as C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right serving a page out of cache in PHP takes ten times as long as C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505578</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261338600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>your skills are out of date, go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>your skills are out of date , go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>your skills are out of date, go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505110</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your reply is ridiculous too. You need extra time only during development. Just a small number of guys are needed to write code. They use a small number of computers, not 22500... By the way it's not so difficult to write code in c++ that will output just a string (the page). Maybe the real advantage is that one php coder costs less than a c++ one.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your reply is ridiculous too .
You need extra time only during development .
Just a small number of guys are needed to write code .
They use a small number of computers , not 22500... By the way it 's not so difficult to write code in c + + that will output just a string ( the page ) .
Maybe the real advantage is that one php coder costs less than a c + + one .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your reply is ridiculous too.
You need extra time only during development.
Just a small number of guys are needed to write code.
They use a small number of computers, not 22500... By the way it's not so difficult to write code in c++ that will output just a string (the page).
Maybe the real advantage is that one php coder costs less than a c++ one.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509330</id>
	<title>Takes 20 times as long to code a website in C++</title>
	<author>smagruder</author>
	<datestamp>1261333980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's my guess of a stat.  I'll keep with PHP, thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's my guess of a stat .
I 'll keep with PHP , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's my guess of a stat.
I'll keep with PHP, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504652</id>
	<title>Stop proselytizing for your cult</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AGW/CC is about as real as Scientology.  Shut the fuck up already.  "The Environment" has taken care of itself for billions of years.  I'm not hurting it and it doesn't need you to save it.</p><p>Beyond that, this post has taken it to a brand new, stupidly religious place.  You're now calculating numbers you pulled out of your ass to indict <em>programming languages</em> that you find to be "un-green."</p><p>That's my limit.  Go sit in the stupid corner until you learn to interact with intelligent adults again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AGW/CC is about as real as Scientology .
Shut the fuck up already .
" The Environment " has taken care of itself for billions of years .
I 'm not hurting it and it does n't need you to save it.Beyond that , this post has taken it to a brand new , stupidly religious place .
You 're now calculating numbers you pulled out of your ass to indict programming languages that you find to be " un-green .
" That 's my limit .
Go sit in the stupid corner until you learn to interact with intelligent adults again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGW/CC is about as real as Scientology.
Shut the fuck up already.
"The Environment" has taken care of itself for billions of years.
I'm not hurting it and it doesn't need you to save it.Beyond that, this post has taken it to a brand new, stupidly religious place.
You're now calculating numbers you pulled out of your ass to indict programming languages that you find to be "un-green.
"That's my limit.
Go sit in the stupid corner until you learn to interact with intelligent adults again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1261333260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"ever read someone's c++ code? has it been a good experience?"<br> <br>

Sure, when the code is written by someone who really knows how to use C++.  Ever read bad PHP code?  Bad Java code?  I have seen programmers do things like this:<br> <br>

int int1, int2, int3, int4, int6, int7;<br> <br>

No, that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration, and the missing number is deliberate.  This is a declaration I saw on a recent project.  This kind of poor coding is language agnostic, and it is entirely irrelevant whether someone is using C++, PHP, or even a language like Haskell (bad Haskell code is worse than that worst C++ code I have ever seen -- if you use a functional language, <b>get it right</b>!).<br> <br>

On the other hand, I have seen some maintainable C++ code, with appropriate and useful comments, well thought out classes and class relationships, and expert use of the STL.  I once worked on a project with C++ code that dated back to the early 90s, and had been continuous updated to support new features and needs, to make use of the STL (yes, this can be written into old code without causing a disaster), and so support systems that did not even exist when the code was originally written.<br> <br>

Don't blame the language, blame programmers who never learned about good programming practices.  Blame computer science programs that give people degrees they do not deserve.  Blame an industry that will hire anyone who can write a hello world program and then assume that they are capable of writing a maintainable system with millions of lines of code.  The best programming language in the world will not solve the problem of poor programmers and poor coding practices.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ever read someone 's c + + code ?
has it been a good experience ?
" Sure , when the code is written by someone who really knows how to use C + + .
Ever read bad PHP code ?
Bad Java code ?
I have seen programmers do things like this : int int1 , int2 , int3 , int4 , int6 , int7 ; No , that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration , and the missing number is deliberate .
This is a declaration I saw on a recent project .
This kind of poor coding is language agnostic , and it is entirely irrelevant whether someone is using C + + , PHP , or even a language like Haskell ( bad Haskell code is worse than that worst C + + code I have ever seen -- if you use a functional language , get it right ! ) .
On the other hand , I have seen some maintainable C + + code , with appropriate and useful comments , well thought out classes and class relationships , and expert use of the STL .
I once worked on a project with C + + code that dated back to the early 90s , and had been continuous updated to support new features and needs , to make use of the STL ( yes , this can be written into old code without causing a disaster ) , and so support systems that did not even exist when the code was originally written .
Do n't blame the language , blame programmers who never learned about good programming practices .
Blame computer science programs that give people degrees they do not deserve .
Blame an industry that will hire anyone who can write a hello world program and then assume that they are capable of writing a maintainable system with millions of lines of code .
The best programming language in the world will not solve the problem of poor programmers and poor coding practices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ever read someone's c++ code?
has it been a good experience?
" 

Sure, when the code is written by someone who really knows how to use C++.
Ever read bad PHP code?
Bad Java code?
I have seen programmers do things like this: 

int int1, int2, int3, int4, int6, int7; 

No, that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration, and the missing number is deliberate.
This is a declaration I saw on a recent project.
This kind of poor coding is language agnostic, and it is entirely irrelevant whether someone is using C++, PHP, or even a language like Haskell (bad Haskell code is worse than that worst C++ code I have ever seen -- if you use a functional language, get it right!).
On the other hand, I have seen some maintainable C++ code, with appropriate and useful comments, well thought out classes and class relationships, and expert use of the STL.
I once worked on a project with C++ code that dated back to the early 90s, and had been continuous updated to support new features and needs, to make use of the STL (yes, this can be written into old code without causing a disaster), and so support systems that did not even exist when the code was originally written.
Don't blame the language, blame programmers who never learned about good programming practices.
Blame computer science programs that give people degrees they do not deserve.
Blame an industry that will hire anyone who can write a hello world program and then assume that they are capable of writing a maintainable system with millions of lines of code.
The best programming language in the world will not solve the problem of poor programmers and poor coding practices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508680</id>
	<title>Re:PHP harder to test than C++</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1261326240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have just seen that the article was written by the guys who wrote this toolkit.</p><p>So feel free to mod my other post as redundant.</p><p>I need to at least RTFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have just seen that the article was written by the guys who wrote this toolkit.So feel free to mod my other post as redundant.I need to at least RTFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have just seen that the article was written by the guys who wrote this toolkit.So feel free to mod my other post as redundant.I need to at least RTFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506170</id>
	<title>PHP vs. C++</title>
	<author>Brian Knotts</author>
	<datestamp>1261299900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is idiotic, and is typical of the kind of pseudo-science underlying much of the climate alarmism currently en vogue. Like a lot of things, it is pretty much impossible to quantify which language ultimately uses more power, because of all the variables. As others have pointed out, you might save some power in the deployment of the code, but you would surely use more power in the development of that code. Then, you have to figure out what the total impact of that is, since you'd have more man-hours of coding, using human coders, who sit at desks, in offices, which must be heated and cooled, etc., etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is idiotic , and is typical of the kind of pseudo-science underlying much of the climate alarmism currently en vogue .
Like a lot of things , it is pretty much impossible to quantify which language ultimately uses more power , because of all the variables .
As others have pointed out , you might save some power in the deployment of the code , but you would surely use more power in the development of that code .
Then , you have to figure out what the total impact of that is , since you 'd have more man-hours of coding , using human coders , who sit at desks , in offices , which must be heated and cooled , etc. , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is idiotic, and is typical of the kind of pseudo-science underlying much of the climate alarmism currently en vogue.
Like a lot of things, it is pretty much impossible to quantify which language ultimately uses more power, because of all the variables.
As others have pointed out, you might save some power in the deployment of the code, but you would surely use more power in the development of that code.
Then, you have to figure out what the total impact of that is, since you'd have more man-hours of coding, using human coders, who sit at desks, in offices, which must be heated and cooled, etc., etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506100</id>
	<title>Environmental insanity</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1261342560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate PHP but there are lots of reasons why PHP might be the better solution. Others have pointed out how ridiculous this is. ASM, C, C++ require more skill, and tkae more time to program with. It seems the moment that lately the moment the environment is mentioned as a factor, not only do all other factors cease to be considered, but all common sense goes out the window. It's like everyone in the room spontaneously turns 12 years old and decides they have the solutions to all the world's problems if only everyone would listen, all the while ignoring the knock on effects and complexities of the real world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate PHP but there are lots of reasons why PHP might be the better solution .
Others have pointed out how ridiculous this is .
ASM , C , C + + require more skill , and tkae more time to program with .
It seems the moment that lately the moment the environment is mentioned as a factor , not only do all other factors cease to be considered , but all common sense goes out the window .
It 's like everyone in the room spontaneously turns 12 years old and decides they have the solutions to all the world 's problems if only everyone would listen , all the while ignoring the knock on effects and complexities of the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate PHP but there are lots of reasons why PHP might be the better solution.
Others have pointed out how ridiculous this is.
ASM, C, C++ require more skill, and tkae more time to program with.
It seems the moment that lately the moment the environment is mentioned as a factor, not only do all other factors cease to be considered, but all common sense goes out the window.
It's like everyone in the room spontaneously turns 12 years old and decides they have the solutions to all the world's problems if only everyone would listen, all the while ignoring the knock on effects and complexities of the real world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504596</id>
	<title>Author needs a clue about metrics</title>
	<author>bokmann</author>
	<datestamp>1261330680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, PHP is a heck of a lot slower on proccessor-bound tasks than C++.  In a pure benchmarking contest, no doubt C++ will win.</p><p>But what about when both languages have to query a database (be it mysql/postgress/oracle, etc)?  In this case, both are blocked on the speed of the database.  a 15 ms query takes 15 ms no matter what language is asking.  Facebook is not calculating pi to 10 gazillion digits, and it is not checking factors for the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.  It is serving up pages containing tons of customized data. This is not proessor-bound... it is I/O bound both on the ins and outs of the database and the ins and outs of the http request.  It is also processor bound on the page render, but the goal of this many machines is to cache to the point where page renders are eliminated.</p><p>Once a page is rendered, it can be cached until the data inside of it changes.  For something like facebook, I bet a page is rendered once for every ~10 times it is viewed by someone.  Caching is done in ram, and large ram caches take a lot of machines.</p><p>So lets look at those 30,000 machines not by their language, but by their role.  We can argue the percentages to death, but lets assume 1/3rd are database, 1/3rd are cache, and 1/3rd are actually running a web server, assembling pages, or otherwise dealing with the end users directly (BTW, I think 1/3rd is way high for that.)</p><p>So 1/3rd of the machines are dealing with page composition and serving pages.  If they serve a page ~10 times for every render request, then abtou 1/10th of the page requests actually cause a render... the rest are being served from cache.  Those page renders are I/O bound, as in the example above - waiting on the database (and other caches, like memcached), so even if they are taking a lot of wait cycles, they are not using processor power on the box.  The actual page composition (which might be 20\% of the processing that box is doing), would be a lot faster in C++...  So 10,000 servers, the virtual equivalent of 2000 are generating pages using php, and could be replaced by 200 boxes using stuff generated in C++.</p><p>So the choice of using php is adding ~1800 machines to the architecture. or ~6\% of the total 30,000.  Given that a php developer is probably 10x more productive than a developer in C++, is the time to market with new features worth that to them?  I bet it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , PHP is a heck of a lot slower on proccessor-bound tasks than C + + .
In a pure benchmarking contest , no doubt C + + will win.But what about when both languages have to query a database ( be it mysql/postgress/oracle , etc ) ?
In this case , both are blocked on the speed of the database .
a 15 ms query takes 15 ms no matter what language is asking .
Facebook is not calculating pi to 10 gazillion digits , and it is not checking factors for the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search .
It is serving up pages containing tons of customized data .
This is not proessor-bound... it is I/O bound both on the ins and outs of the database and the ins and outs of the http request .
It is also processor bound on the page render , but the goal of this many machines is to cache to the point where page renders are eliminated.Once a page is rendered , it can be cached until the data inside of it changes .
For something like facebook , I bet a page is rendered once for every ~ 10 times it is viewed by someone .
Caching is done in ram , and large ram caches take a lot of machines.So lets look at those 30,000 machines not by their language , but by their role .
We can argue the percentages to death , but lets assume 1/3rd are database , 1/3rd are cache , and 1/3rd are actually running a web server , assembling pages , or otherwise dealing with the end users directly ( BTW , I think 1/3rd is way high for that .
) So 1/3rd of the machines are dealing with page composition and serving pages .
If they serve a page ~ 10 times for every render request , then abtou 1/10th of the page requests actually cause a render... the rest are being served from cache .
Those page renders are I/O bound , as in the example above - waiting on the database ( and other caches , like memcached ) , so even if they are taking a lot of wait cycles , they are not using processor power on the box .
The actual page composition ( which might be 20 \ % of the processing that box is doing ) , would be a lot faster in C + + ... So 10,000 servers , the virtual equivalent of 2000 are generating pages using php , and could be replaced by 200 boxes using stuff generated in C + + .So the choice of using php is adding ~ 1800 machines to the architecture .
or ~ 6 \ % of the total 30,000 .
Given that a php developer is probably 10x more productive than a developer in C + + , is the time to market with new features worth that to them ?
I bet it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, PHP is a heck of a lot slower on proccessor-bound tasks than C++.
In a pure benchmarking contest, no doubt C++ will win.But what about when both languages have to query a database (be it mysql/postgress/oracle, etc)?
In this case, both are blocked on the speed of the database.
a 15 ms query takes 15 ms no matter what language is asking.
Facebook is not calculating pi to 10 gazillion digits, and it is not checking factors for the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search.
It is serving up pages containing tons of customized data.
This is not proessor-bound... it is I/O bound both on the ins and outs of the database and the ins and outs of the http request.
It is also processor bound on the page render, but the goal of this many machines is to cache to the point where page renders are eliminated.Once a page is rendered, it can be cached until the data inside of it changes.
For something like facebook, I bet a page is rendered once for every ~10 times it is viewed by someone.
Caching is done in ram, and large ram caches take a lot of machines.So lets look at those 30,000 machines not by their language, but by their role.
We can argue the percentages to death, but lets assume 1/3rd are database, 1/3rd are cache, and 1/3rd are actually running a web server, assembling pages, or otherwise dealing with the end users directly (BTW, I think 1/3rd is way high for that.
)So 1/3rd of the machines are dealing with page composition and serving pages.
If they serve a page ~10 times for every render request, then abtou 1/10th of the page requests actually cause a render... the rest are being served from cache.
Those page renders are I/O bound, as in the example above - waiting on the database (and other caches, like memcached), so even if they are taking a lot of wait cycles, they are not using processor power on the box.
The actual page composition (which might be 20\% of the processing that box is doing), would be a lot faster in C++...  So 10,000 servers, the virtual equivalent of 2000 are generating pages using php, and could be replaced by 200 boxes using stuff generated in C++.So the choice of using php is adding ~1800 machines to the architecture.
or ~6\% of the total 30,000.
Given that a php developer is probably 10x more productive than a developer in C++, is the time to market with new features worth that to them?
I bet it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506124</id>
	<title>Been there, didn't do that</title>
	<author>efalk</author>
	<datestamp>1261342680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that once your server farm exceeds 100 servers, it's time to start seriously thinking of re-architecting in C.  That's probably about the tipping point where your cost of build-out will exceed the engineering costs of switching technologies.</p><p>I invested in a small startup a couple of years ago.  We based everything on Ruby-on-Rails, php, mysql, and I forget what else.  The bitter lesson we learned -- and what was the main cause of the company's failure -- was that this technology doesn't scale.  We nursed it along to 30M records on two servers (the db admins must've been geniuses to coax it that far), but in the end, it fell over.</p><p>We could have saved the company if we could have afforded to expand our servers on our shoestring budget, but in the end, the software infrastructure we were using would have failed us one way or another.</p><p>I've also worked for companies that scaled successfully, and they were the ones that got it.  Switched from scripting languages to C++.  Switched from MySQL to a dedicated database engine.</p><p>Scripting languages are great for development and prototyping, but for serious production use, you really need to bite the bullet and switch to compiled languages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that once your server farm exceeds 100 servers , it 's time to start seriously thinking of re-architecting in C. That 's probably about the tipping point where your cost of build-out will exceed the engineering costs of switching technologies.I invested in a small startup a couple of years ago .
We based everything on Ruby-on-Rails , php , mysql , and I forget what else .
The bitter lesson we learned -- and what was the main cause of the company 's failure -- was that this technology does n't scale .
We nursed it along to 30M records on two servers ( the db admins must 've been geniuses to coax it that far ) , but in the end , it fell over.We could have saved the company if we could have afforded to expand our servers on our shoestring budget , but in the end , the software infrastructure we were using would have failed us one way or another.I 've also worked for companies that scaled successfully , and they were the ones that got it .
Switched from scripting languages to C + + .
Switched from MySQL to a dedicated database engine.Scripting languages are great for development and prototyping , but for serious production use , you really need to bite the bullet and switch to compiled languages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that once your server farm exceeds 100 servers, it's time to start seriously thinking of re-architecting in C.  That's probably about the tipping point where your cost of build-out will exceed the engineering costs of switching technologies.I invested in a small startup a couple of years ago.
We based everything on Ruby-on-Rails, php, mysql, and I forget what else.
The bitter lesson we learned -- and what was the main cause of the company's failure -- was that this technology doesn't scale.
We nursed it along to 30M records on two servers (the db admins must've been geniuses to coax it that far), but in the end, it fell over.We could have saved the company if we could have afforded to expand our servers on our shoestring budget, but in the end, the software infrastructure we were using would have failed us one way or another.I've also worked for companies that scaled successfully, and they were the ones that got it.
Switched from scripting languages to C++.
Switched from MySQL to a dedicated database engine.Scripting languages are great for development and prototyping, but for serious production use, you really need to bite the bullet and switch to compiled languages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507234</id>
	<title>Questionable Assumptions</title>
	<author>WinkingChicken</author>
	<datestamp>1261308960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At best,  a good case for compiling PHP code.

I'm not sure the assumptions are sound at all:  10:1 ration? PHP code is dominant code executed?

I'd bet most of execution is in database,  and that is surely executing compiled C/C++.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At best , a good case for compiling PHP code .
I 'm not sure the assumptions are sound at all : 10 : 1 ration ?
PHP code is dominant code executed ?
I 'd bet most of execution is in database , and that is surely executing compiled C/C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At best,  a good case for compiling PHP code.
I'm not sure the assumptions are sound at all:  10:1 ration?
PHP code is dominant code executed?
I'd bet most of execution is in database,  and that is surely executing compiled C/C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510096</id>
	<title>Compiled PHP?</title>
	<author>softegg</author>
	<datestamp>1261389780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have not tried this, but there is a thing called PHC ( <a href="http://www.phpcompiler.org/" title="phpcompiler.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.phpcompiler.org/</a> [phpcompiler.org] ) that purports to compile PHP code. Has anybody tried it? Does it work? Is it useful?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have not tried this , but there is a thing called PHC ( http : //www.phpcompiler.org/ [ phpcompiler.org ] ) that purports to compile PHP code .
Has anybody tried it ?
Does it work ?
Is it useful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have not tried this, but there is a thing called PHC ( http://www.phpcompiler.org/ [phpcompiler.org] ) that purports to compile PHP code.
Has anybody tried it?
Does it work?
Is it useful?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504356</id>
	<title>Morons.</title>
	<author>Luke727</author>
	<datestamp>1261329000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why people don't take global warming seriously.  Please, just stop it.  If you really wanted to help, you could just fucking kill yourself and cut your carbon footprint to 0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why people do n't take global warming seriously .
Please , just stop it .
If you really wanted to help , you could just fucking kill yourself and cut your carbon footprint to 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why people don't take global warming seriously.
Please, just stop it.
If you really wanted to help, you could just fucking kill yourself and cut your carbon footprint to 0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504766</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261331940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In terms of total page delivery latency for a typical I/O bound application, sure. In terms of actual cpu usage, 10x overhead for any dynamically typed language is to be expected.  If the application servers are CPU bound, that means a lot more servers.</p><p>In addition, dynamic languages do not compile or JIT well, compared to statically typed languages, which severely limits the overhead reduction achievable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of total page delivery latency for a typical I/O bound application , sure .
In terms of actual cpu usage , 10x overhead for any dynamically typed language is to be expected .
If the application servers are CPU bound , that means a lot more servers.In addition , dynamic languages do not compile or JIT well , compared to statically typed languages , which severely limits the overhead reduction achievable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of total page delivery latency for a typical I/O bound application, sure.
In terms of actual cpu usage, 10x overhead for any dynamically typed language is to be expected.
If the application servers are CPU bound, that means a lot more servers.In addition, dynamic languages do not compile or JIT well, compared to statically typed languages, which severely limits the overhead reduction achievable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504696</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1261331340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of the power of interpreted languages comes from the abstractions that are put in place to make programming easier. These abstractions have a price in terms of execution time. Furthermore, once you're using an abstraction, there's not a simple way in the imperative paradigm for a compiler to determine that your code needs XYZ part of the abstraction, but not part ABC. You need to do the whole thing.<p>
For example, consider the following. Say bad things about PHP all you want (it deserves it) but one of the things you <i>don't</i> generally see with PHP code is a buffer overflow, where you try to copy a bunch of strings and concatenate them together and you run out of room and don't notice it and you go clobbering memory. That's because the string manipulation code goes through a bunch of checks when you're appending strings. You can't just skip these checks and hope that everything will work the same. You may <i>know</i> that such and such a code-path isn't going to need all the bounds checking because you're, say, idunno, assembling fixed-length ZIP+4 codes or something, but the scripting language can't be informed of that fact using any extant mechanism (nor is it clear how you could integrate such a mechanism with the powerful abstraction that lets you not worry about the rest of your strings to begin with).
</p><p>
Moreover, as has already been pointed out, a lot of the computational price of rendering a web page is database queries and memory-cached-object queries which employ compiled code already. The string-manipulation overhead isn't all that significant compared to the abstraction that it buys you. It's probably a better idea to track down logic issues, where your code does stupid useless computations that it doesn't need that make it slow, or could do certain computations in advance to make it faster, or such.
</p><p>
I think there's a lot more potential for interesting machine optimization of code for things coming from the functional paradigm, where you can mathematically show the equivalence of certain portions of code with its optimized replacement, and that this paradigm will be making a resurgence in some places during the upcoming era of 128-core processors. This might be interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the power of interpreted languages comes from the abstractions that are put in place to make programming easier .
These abstractions have a price in terms of execution time .
Furthermore , once you 're using an abstraction , there 's not a simple way in the imperative paradigm for a compiler to determine that your code needs XYZ part of the abstraction , but not part ABC .
You need to do the whole thing .
For example , consider the following .
Say bad things about PHP all you want ( it deserves it ) but one of the things you do n't generally see with PHP code is a buffer overflow , where you try to copy a bunch of strings and concatenate them together and you run out of room and do n't notice it and you go clobbering memory .
That 's because the string manipulation code goes through a bunch of checks when you 're appending strings .
You ca n't just skip these checks and hope that everything will work the same .
You may know that such and such a code-path is n't going to need all the bounds checking because you 're , say , idunno , assembling fixed-length ZIP + 4 codes or something , but the scripting language ca n't be informed of that fact using any extant mechanism ( nor is it clear how you could integrate such a mechanism with the powerful abstraction that lets you not worry about the rest of your strings to begin with ) .
Moreover , as has already been pointed out , a lot of the computational price of rendering a web page is database queries and memory-cached-object queries which employ compiled code already .
The string-manipulation overhead is n't all that significant compared to the abstraction that it buys you .
It 's probably a better idea to track down logic issues , where your code does stupid useless computations that it does n't need that make it slow , or could do certain computations in advance to make it faster , or such .
I think there 's a lot more potential for interesting machine optimization of code for things coming from the functional paradigm , where you can mathematically show the equivalence of certain portions of code with its optimized replacement , and that this paradigm will be making a resurgence in some places during the upcoming era of 128-core processors .
This might be interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of the power of interpreted languages comes from the abstractions that are put in place to make programming easier.
These abstractions have a price in terms of execution time.
Furthermore, once you're using an abstraction, there's not a simple way in the imperative paradigm for a compiler to determine that your code needs XYZ part of the abstraction, but not part ABC.
You need to do the whole thing.
For example, consider the following.
Say bad things about PHP all you want (it deserves it) but one of the things you don't generally see with PHP code is a buffer overflow, where you try to copy a bunch of strings and concatenate them together and you run out of room and don't notice it and you go clobbering memory.
That's because the string manipulation code goes through a bunch of checks when you're appending strings.
You can't just skip these checks and hope that everything will work the same.
You may know that such and such a code-path isn't going to need all the bounds checking because you're, say, idunno, assembling fixed-length ZIP+4 codes or something, but the scripting language can't be informed of that fact using any extant mechanism (nor is it clear how you could integrate such a mechanism with the powerful abstraction that lets you not worry about the rest of your strings to begin with).
Moreover, as has already been pointed out, a lot of the computational price of rendering a web page is database queries and memory-cached-object queries which employ compiled code already.
The string-manipulation overhead isn't all that significant compared to the abstraction that it buys you.
It's probably a better idea to track down logic issues, where your code does stupid useless computations that it doesn't need that make it slow, or could do certain computations in advance to make it faster, or such.
I think there's a lot more potential for interesting machine optimization of code for things coming from the functional paradigm, where you can mathematically show the equivalence of certain portions of code with its optimized replacement, and that this paradigm will be making a resurgence in some places during the upcoming era of 128-core processors.
This might be interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509102</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1261331040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>As others have pointed out there is development time and compile time associated with C++</em> </p><p>Why does compile time matter? How much time is spent compiling vs. testing? At my company, building the product core takes 7.5 minutes. Putting it through the full set of release-gating tests takes, on average, about three weeks.</p><p>Or are you saying you don't test your code? In my experience, people who tout the lack of compilation as an advantage tend to be the same people who throw code into production without even basic testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As others have pointed out there is development time and compile time associated with C + + Why does compile time matter ?
How much time is spent compiling vs. testing ? At my company , building the product core takes 7.5 minutes .
Putting it through the full set of release-gating tests takes , on average , about three weeks.Or are you saying you do n't test your code ?
In my experience , people who tout the lack of compilation as an advantage tend to be the same people who throw code into production without even basic testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> As others have pointed out there is development time and compile time associated with C++ Why does compile time matter?
How much time is spent compiling vs. testing? At my company, building the product core takes 7.5 minutes.
Putting it through the full set of release-gating tests takes, on average, about three weeks.Or are you saying you don't test your code?
In my experience, people who tout the lack of compilation as an advantage tend to be the same people who throw code into production without even basic testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504272</id>
	<title>Fuck CO2</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about we talk money instead.  Apparently the cost for power and cooling is less than the cost of rewriting, at least within the planning horizon of Facebook management.</p><p>And while we are at it, fuck C++ too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about we talk money instead .
Apparently the cost for power and cooling is less than the cost of rewriting , at least within the planning horizon of Facebook management.And while we are at it , fuck C + + too .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about we talk money instead.
Apparently the cost for power and cooling is less than the cost of rewriting, at least within the planning horizon of Facebook management.And while we are at it, fuck C++ too.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513598</id>
	<title>Get it done vs. get it done right</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1261418280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get it done wins every time. Power is cheaper than a competent C++ coder's time and time to market is shorter for PHP. I'm not saying it's right, it's just reality kicking idealism's ass again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/shrug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get it done wins every time .
Power is cheaper than a competent C + + coder 's time and time to market is shorter for PHP .
I 'm not saying it 's right , it 's just reality kicking idealism 's ass again .
/shrug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get it done wins every time.
Power is cheaper than a competent C++ coder's time and time to market is shorter for PHP.
I'm not saying it's right, it's just reality kicking idealism's ass again.
/shrug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504776</id>
	<title>Economics, my friend!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously lesser number of servers for a lesser CO2 footprint also means cheaper server infrastructure. If that was the case, don't you think FB would have done it long ago? Economic forces are the main drivers of technology innovation in social networking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously lesser number of servers for a lesser CO2 footprint also means cheaper server infrastructure .
If that was the case , do n't you think FB would have done it long ago ?
Economic forces are the main drivers of technology innovation in social networking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously lesser number of servers for a lesser CO2 footprint also means cheaper server infrastructure.
If that was the case, don't you think FB would have done it long ago?
Economic forces are the main drivers of technology innovation in social networking!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505448</id>
	<title>This is what COP15 should have...</title>
	<author>heidaro</author>
	<datestamp>1261337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...covered. Ban all programming languages except assembler! They emit CO2 and will lead to the destruction of the universe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...covered .
Ban all programming languages except assembler !
They emit CO2 and will lead to the destruction of the universe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...covered.
Ban all programming languages except assembler!
They emit CO2 and will lead to the destruction of the universe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504296</id>
	<title>where did he get this factor?</title>
	<author>quickOnTheUptake</author>
	<datestamp>1261328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking that these scripts are just thin front ends to a massive db. Thus, a lot of the computer's time is going to be spent on I/O, and a lot of the processing is going to be taking place in the db itself, which is probably written in C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking that these scripts are just thin front ends to a massive db .
Thus , a lot of the computer 's time is going to be spent on I/O , and a lot of the processing is going to be taking place in the db itself , which is probably written in C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking that these scripts are just thin front ends to a massive db.
Thus, a lot of the computer's time is going to be spent on I/O, and a lot of the processing is going to be taking place in the db itself, which is probably written in C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510806</id>
	<title>OO is stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261399860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually OO guys routinely make things ambiguous.</p><p>Three lines of code becomes 60 after several classes have become established.<br>Instantiate is such a spontaneous word to them.  Every 3rd word out of an OO guy's mouth is instantiate.</p><p>Damn Microsoft people.</p><p>So I proudly write int int1, int2 and int3 just to piss you off.</p><p>Reminds me of Debian people with their packages of packages.</p><p>Ar sucks.  Just use Tar.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually OO guys routinely make things ambiguous.Three lines of code becomes 60 after several classes have become established.Instantiate is such a spontaneous word to them .
Every 3rd word out of an OO guy 's mouth is instantiate.Damn Microsoft people.So I proudly write int int1 , int2 and int3 just to piss you off.Reminds me of Debian people with their packages of packages.Ar sucks .
Just use Tar .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually OO guys routinely make things ambiguous.Three lines of code becomes 60 after several classes have become established.Instantiate is such a spontaneous word to them.
Every 3rd word out of an OO guy's mouth is instantiate.Damn Microsoft people.So I proudly write int int1, int2 and int3 just to piss you off.Reminds me of Debian people with their packages of packages.Ar sucks.
Just use Tar.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30518082</id>
	<title>morhook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261397100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you think the wikipedia should be written in C++ too? My G-O-D!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think the wikipedia should be written in C + + too ?
My G-O-D !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think the wikipedia should be written in C++ too?
My G-O-D!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506848</id>
	<title>Opportunity cost</title>
	<author>Goonie</author>
	<datestamp>1261306140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, it's time for economics 101 again - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity\_cost" title="wikipedia.org">opportunity cost</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>As a very rough, correct-within-a-factor-of-two  estimate, let's assume that the average server results in two tonnes of CO2 being emitted to keep it running.  So that's 45,000 tonnes of CO2 a year saved, if the OP's estimate of the difference in speed is correct (which I doubt, but anyway).</p><p>However, if Facebook implements in C++, it's reasonable to assume that they will need to hire more developers, and more expensive developers, than if they use PHP.</p><p>I don't have accurate numbers, but I'll pull them out of my arse here for the purposes of illustration.  Let's say that rather than 500 PHP earning $60,000 a year, Facebook instead employed  750 C++ developers earning $80,000 a year.  That's 50 million bucks a year in extra expenses.</p><p>Carbon credits on the EU ETS are currently going for around 20 USD.  So if you want to prevent the emission of a tonne of CO2, you can go to the EU climate exchange, hand over the equivalent of 20 USD in Euros, and simply rip  the permit and not use it.</p><p>So let's say that Facebook spends 10\% of the difference in programmer costs - 5 million dollars - on ripping up EU emissions permits.  They prevent 250000 tonnes of carbon emissions.  That's more than five times as much emission reduction as achieved by substituting PHP for C++, and Facebook still has $45 million in the bank.</p><p>Heck, we could replace "buy carbon credits" with much higher-cost abatement options like "buy Priuses for company cars" and still come out in front.</p><p>Here endeth the lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , it 's time for economics 101 again - opportunity cost [ wikipedia.org ] .As a very rough , correct-within-a-factor-of-two estimate , let 's assume that the average server results in two tonnes of CO2 being emitted to keep it running .
So that 's 45,000 tonnes of CO2 a year saved , if the OP 's estimate of the difference in speed is correct ( which I doubt , but anyway ) .However , if Facebook implements in C + + , it 's reasonable to assume that they will need to hire more developers , and more expensive developers , than if they use PHP.I do n't have accurate numbers , but I 'll pull them out of my arse here for the purposes of illustration .
Let 's say that rather than 500 PHP earning $ 60,000 a year , Facebook instead employed 750 C + + developers earning $ 80,000 a year .
That 's 50 million bucks a year in extra expenses.Carbon credits on the EU ETS are currently going for around 20 USD .
So if you want to prevent the emission of a tonne of CO2 , you can go to the EU climate exchange , hand over the equivalent of 20 USD in Euros , and simply rip the permit and not use it.So let 's say that Facebook spends 10 \ % of the difference in programmer costs - 5 million dollars - on ripping up EU emissions permits .
They prevent 250000 tonnes of carbon emissions .
That 's more than five times as much emission reduction as achieved by substituting PHP for C + + , and Facebook still has $ 45 million in the bank.Heck , we could replace " buy carbon credits " with much higher-cost abatement options like " buy Priuses for company cars " and still come out in front.Here endeth the lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, it's time for economics 101 again - opportunity cost [wikipedia.org].As a very rough, correct-within-a-factor-of-two  estimate, let's assume that the average server results in two tonnes of CO2 being emitted to keep it running.
So that's 45,000 tonnes of CO2 a year saved, if the OP's estimate of the difference in speed is correct (which I doubt, but anyway).However, if Facebook implements in C++, it's reasonable to assume that they will need to hire more developers, and more expensive developers, than if they use PHP.I don't have accurate numbers, but I'll pull them out of my arse here for the purposes of illustration.
Let's say that rather than 500 PHP earning $60,000 a year, Facebook instead employed  750 C++ developers earning $80,000 a year.
That's 50 million bucks a year in extra expenses.Carbon credits on the EU ETS are currently going for around 20 USD.
So if you want to prevent the emission of a tonne of CO2, you can go to the EU climate exchange, hand over the equivalent of 20 USD in Euros, and simply rip  the permit and not use it.So let's say that Facebook spends 10\% of the difference in programmer costs - 5 million dollars - on ripping up EU emissions permits.
They prevent 250000 tonnes of carbon emissions.
That's more than five times as much emission reduction as achieved by substituting PHP for C++, and Facebook still has $45 million in the bank.Heck, we could replace "buy carbon credits" with much higher-cost abatement options like "buy Priuses for company cars" and still come out in front.Here endeth the lesson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507106</id>
	<title>Just in case...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261307880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...you're actually being serious, PHP with the Zend optimizer should give you most of the speed of C++ by precompiling at runtime; the "22,500" number also seems pie-in-the-sky optimistic. There is also the need to compile all the C++ code before going "live," which means all of your code needs to be compiled together (instead of updating 1 script); replacing the scripting language with C++ would not affect the power usage (and CO2 footprint) of the database server, and finally you're basing your numbers on the advertising page for Webtoolkit, which is going to be biased against PHP to sell their product. You're also going to have to train your programmers to use WT and C++ instead of PHP (which is a bit easier to learn; I know firsthand!), and pay CO2 penalties to convert all your code over. Not a pretty concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you 're actually being serious , PHP with the Zend optimizer should give you most of the speed of C + + by precompiling at runtime ; the " 22,500 " number also seems pie-in-the-sky optimistic .
There is also the need to compile all the C + + code before going " live , " which means all of your code needs to be compiled together ( instead of updating 1 script ) ; replacing the scripting language with C + + would not affect the power usage ( and CO2 footprint ) of the database server , and finally you 're basing your numbers on the advertising page for Webtoolkit , which is going to be biased against PHP to sell their product .
You 're also going to have to train your programmers to use WT and C + + instead of PHP ( which is a bit easier to learn ; I know firsthand !
) , and pay CO2 penalties to convert all your code over .
Not a pretty concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you're actually being serious, PHP with the Zend optimizer should give you most of the speed of C++ by precompiling at runtime; the "22,500" number also seems pie-in-the-sky optimistic.
There is also the need to compile all the C++ code before going "live," which means all of your code needs to be compiled together (instead of updating 1 script); replacing the scripting language with C++ would not affect the power usage (and CO2 footprint) of the database server, and finally you're basing your numbers on the advertising page for Webtoolkit, which is going to be biased against PHP to sell their product.
You're also going to have to train your programmers to use WT and C++ instead of PHP (which is a bit easier to learn; I know firsthand!
), and pay CO2 penalties to convert all your code over.
Not a pretty concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505000</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1261333680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Facebook uses <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2356432130" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">APC</a> [facebook.com] to compile and optimize the code in the shared memory so it doesn't have to be compiled over and over again.</p><p>There are other libraries for caching PHP functions on many different levels as well, and they're open source, for the most part. Some real bright minds from Facebook and other large PHP applications have contributed to them.</p><p>Bottom line: PHP is quite powerful and efficient when built and extended properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Facebook uses APC [ facebook.com ] to compile and optimize the code in the shared memory so it does n't have to be compiled over and over again.There are other libraries for caching PHP functions on many different levels as well , and they 're open source , for the most part .
Some real bright minds from Facebook and other large PHP applications have contributed to them.Bottom line : PHP is quite powerful and efficient when built and extended properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Facebook uses APC [facebook.com] to compile and optimize the code in the shared memory so it doesn't have to be compiled over and over again.There are other libraries for caching PHP functions on many different levels as well, and they're open source, for the most part.
Some real bright minds from Facebook and other large PHP applications have contributed to them.Bottom line: PHP is quite powerful and efficient when built and extended properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509498</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1261336320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't work with JavaScript, but... what's all this fuss about new JS engines running 20-40x faster?  Isn't the code just going to be slowed down by the browser and AJAX requests and stuff?  Why make a big deal about an order of magnitude performance increase in the script code?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't work with JavaScript , but... what 's all this fuss about new JS engines running 20-40x faster ?
Is n't the code just going to be slowed down by the browser and AJAX requests and stuff ?
Why make a big deal about an order of magnitude performance increase in the script code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't work with JavaScript, but... what's all this fuss about new JS engines running 20-40x faster?
Isn't the code just going to be slowed down by the browser and AJAX requests and stuff?
Why make a big deal about an order of magnitude performance increase in the script code?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505536</id>
	<title>I call shenanigans</title>
	<author>BlortHorc</author>
	<datestamp>1261338360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This guys takes some benchmarks that have absolutely no basis in actual real world performance and beats his drum.</p><p>What, does he want a medal for a beat up on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.?</p><p>Drop this fool down a well, and leave optimisation to those who understand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guys takes some benchmarks that have absolutely no basis in actual real world performance and beats his drum.What , does he want a medal for a beat up on / .
? Drop this fool down a well , and leave optimisation to those who understand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guys takes some benchmarks that have absolutely no basis in actual real world performance and beats his drum.What, does he want a medal for a beat up on /.
?Drop this fool down a well, and leave optimisation to those who understand it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505378</id>
	<title>Plus, C++ is an environment-hostile choice</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1261336560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>C++ is much too slow and carries too much of an overhead. And it usually requires an operating system on a general-purpose processor. You could go to hand-optimized binary code written directly for the processor but that still leaves us with inefficiencies.<br>
<br>
Imagine if every website was implemented as an ASIC. Then we could talk about efficient datacenters. Maybe, if you're relly strapped for cash, you could implement each website in an FPGA. But that should only be a stopgap measure until you can afford a proper implementation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + is much too slow and carries too much of an overhead .
And it usually requires an operating system on a general-purpose processor .
You could go to hand-optimized binary code written directly for the processor but that still leaves us with inefficiencies .
Imagine if every website was implemented as an ASIC .
Then we could talk about efficient datacenters .
Maybe , if you 're relly strapped for cash , you could implement each website in an FPGA .
But that should only be a stopgap measure until you can afford a proper implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ is much too slow and carries too much of an overhead.
And it usually requires an operating system on a general-purpose processor.
You could go to hand-optimized binary code written directly for the processor but that still leaves us with inefficiencies.
Imagine if every website was implemented as an ASIC.
Then we could talk about efficient datacenters.
Maybe, if you're relly strapped for cash, you could implement each website in an FPGA.
But that should only be a stopgap measure until you can afford a proper implementation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505522</id>
	<title>Re:Just think how much greener they could be...</title>
	<author>mehrotra.akash</author>
	<datestamp>1261338240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why stop at assembly, use machine language</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why stop at assembly , use machine language</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why stop at assembly, use machine language</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504334</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505094</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP isn't BAD...it just isn't very GOOD either.  The random inconsistencies in functions (strpos, str\_split, substr - which is it?  Do we put underbars between name parts or run them together?) and the way things are different from other languages for no apparent reason or benefit (as if just to be different) annoy programmers.  There's a lot of "it feels tacked on" in PHP, and while other languages have things tacked on, they don't feel quite as awkward about it (e.g., Perl, Java).</p><p>To me, PHP feels like something the voodoo magician cooked up in his hut, while other languages feel like they came from the Wizard's Academy.  It works, but it's no beauty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP is n't BAD...it just is n't very GOOD either .
The random inconsistencies in functions ( strpos , str \ _split , substr - which is it ?
Do we put underbars between name parts or run them together ?
) and the way things are different from other languages for no apparent reason or benefit ( as if just to be different ) annoy programmers .
There 's a lot of " it feels tacked on " in PHP , and while other languages have things tacked on , they do n't feel quite as awkward about it ( e.g. , Perl , Java ) .To me , PHP feels like something the voodoo magician cooked up in his hut , while other languages feel like they came from the Wizard 's Academy .
It works , but it 's no beauty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP isn't BAD...it just isn't very GOOD either.
The random inconsistencies in functions (strpos, str\_split, substr - which is it?
Do we put underbars between name parts or run them together?
) and the way things are different from other languages for no apparent reason or benefit (as if just to be different) annoy programmers.
There's a lot of "it feels tacked on" in PHP, and while other languages have things tacked on, they don't feel quite as awkward about it (e.g., Perl, Java).To me, PHP feels like something the voodoo magician cooked up in his hut, while other languages feel like they came from the Wizard's Academy.
It works, but it's no beauty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506416</id>
	<title>library routines are compiled</title>
	<author>brausch</author>
	<datestamp>1261302120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of PHP code is just making function calls to the built-in library functions anyway, and those library routines are all compiled C/C++. If I call a library function from C or from PHP there is some difference in overhead when setting up the call and processing the results but the actual function is likely to be the exact same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of PHP code is just making function calls to the built-in library functions anyway , and those library routines are all compiled C/C + + .
If I call a library function from C or from PHP there is some difference in overhead when setting up the call and processing the results but the actual function is likely to be the exact same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of PHP code is just making function calls to the built-in library functions anyway, and those library routines are all compiled C/C++.
If I call a library function from C or from PHP there is some difference in overhead when setting up the call and processing the results but the actual function is likely to be the exact same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507080</id>
	<title>Isn't PHP compiled to native code and then cached?</title>
	<author>idontusenumbers</author>
	<datestamp>1261307760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding was that PHP code wasn't interpreted for every page view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding was that PHP code was n't interpreted for every page view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding was that PHP code wasn't interpreted for every page view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509336</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>dmuir</author>
	<datestamp>1261333980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>APC will be included in PHP6. Bytecode caching has not really been a huge issue in PHP until more recently with larger MVC frameworks being used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>APC will be included in PHP6 .
Bytecode caching has not really been a huge issue in PHP until more recently with larger MVC frameworks being used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>APC will be included in PHP6.
Bytecode caching has not really been a huge issue in PHP until more recently with larger MVC frameworks being used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505622</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261338840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10:1 is a conservative estimate of the *efficiency* of page generation in PHP vs. C++.  If you are not CPU bound on the page generation servers, an increase in page generation efficiency won't make a perceptible difference.</p><p>However, if you have a large number of servers that do nothing other than page generation because the page generation process is CPU bound, how efficient that process is makes a big difference in terms of how many servers you require.  So small sites shouldn't care, and very large sites should care *a lot*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 : 1 is a conservative estimate of the * efficiency * of page generation in PHP vs. C + + . If you are not CPU bound on the page generation servers , an increase in page generation efficiency wo n't make a perceptible difference.However , if you have a large number of servers that do nothing other than page generation because the page generation process is CPU bound , how efficient that process is makes a big difference in terms of how many servers you require .
So small sites should n't care , and very large sites should care * a lot * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10:1 is a conservative estimate of the *efficiency* of page generation in PHP vs. C++.  If you are not CPU bound on the page generation servers, an increase in page generation efficiency won't make a perceptible difference.However, if you have a large number of servers that do nothing other than page generation because the page generation process is CPU bound, how efficient that process is makes a big difference in terms of how many servers you require.
So small sites shouldn't care, and very large sites should care *a lot*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505216</id>
	<title>If you believe this, invest in Iceland banks</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1261335240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's right, because a similar level of chicanery is going on in this claim. A small factor of system expense is being extended into a region of pure nonsense. There are plenty of more reasons to have a large, scattered base of servers. These include:</p><p>* Local database mirroring and caching to improve response times for dynamic content.<br>* Local proxying of static material to improve response times and to improve upstream bandwidth costs, and reduce the number of connections made to the core servers and avoid DDOS'ng yourself.<br>* The idea that PHP's function calls to pull and present disk-based or data-based material would somehow magically reduce the overall cost and need for servers, even theough the request for material is probably one of the most efficient steps.</p><p>I've had eager young engineers extrapolate their favorite tool into being the great solution to all issues this way before. Educating them in the concept of looking for the \_other\_ bottlenecks is a painful process, and I wish I could have found a good course in it before a lot of recent projects myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right , because a similar level of chicanery is going on in this claim .
A small factor of system expense is being extended into a region of pure nonsense .
There are plenty of more reasons to have a large , scattered base of servers .
These include : * Local database mirroring and caching to improve response times for dynamic content .
* Local proxying of static material to improve response times and to improve upstream bandwidth costs , and reduce the number of connections made to the core servers and avoid DDOS'ng yourself .
* The idea that PHP 's function calls to pull and present disk-based or data-based material would somehow magically reduce the overall cost and need for servers , even theough the request for material is probably one of the most efficient steps.I 've had eager young engineers extrapolate their favorite tool into being the great solution to all issues this way before .
Educating them in the concept of looking for the \ _other \ _ bottlenecks is a painful process , and I wish I could have found a good course in it before a lot of recent projects myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right, because a similar level of chicanery is going on in this claim.
A small factor of system expense is being extended into a region of pure nonsense.
There are plenty of more reasons to have a large, scattered base of servers.
These include:* Local database mirroring and caching to improve response times for dynamic content.
* Local proxying of static material to improve response times and to improve upstream bandwidth costs, and reduce the number of connections made to the core servers and avoid DDOS'ng yourself.
* The idea that PHP's function calls to pull and present disk-based or data-based material would somehow magically reduce the overall cost and need for servers, even theough the request for material is probably one of the most efficient steps.I've had eager young engineers extrapolate their favorite tool into being the great solution to all issues this way before.
Educating them in the concept of looking for the \_other\_ bottlenecks is a painful process, and I wish I could have found a good course in it before a lot of recent projects myself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507290</id>
	<title>Assumptions, eh?</title>
	<author>nathanh</author>
	<datestamp>1261309500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>

Let's assume that C++ is twice as hard to code and maintain as PHP. Let's also assume 200 man years of work went in Facebook. Let's further assume there are 50 maintenance workers and each worker commutes 50km per day, 220 days per year.

</p><p>

Cars average 200 grams of CO2 emissions per km, so writing Facebook in C++ would have produced 440,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers. Each year that goes by, the C++ maintenance workers would have produced 110,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers.

</p><p>

Sounds like a good argument to dump C++. As if you needed any argument other than "it's C++"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's assume that C + + is twice as hard to code and maintain as PHP .
Let 's also assume 200 man years of work went in Facebook .
Let 's further assume there are 50 maintenance workers and each worker commutes 50km per day , 220 days per year .
Cars average 200 grams of CO2 emissions per km , so writing Facebook in C + + would have produced 440,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers .
Each year that goes by , the C + + maintenance workers would have produced 110,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers .
Sounds like a good argument to dump C + + .
As if you needed any argument other than " it 's C + + " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Let's assume that C++ is twice as hard to code and maintain as PHP.
Let's also assume 200 man years of work went in Facebook.
Let's further assume there are 50 maintenance workers and each worker commutes 50km per day, 220 days per year.
Cars average 200 grams of CO2 emissions per km, so writing Facebook in C++ would have produced 440,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers.
Each year that goes by, the C++ maintenance workers would have produced 110,000 more tonnes of CO2 than the PHP workers.
Sounds like a good argument to dump C++.
As if you needed any argument other than "it's C++"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509996</id>
	<title>Re:The REAL solution</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1261388040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well, technically, an html page is just a plain text file</htmltext>
<tokenext>well , technically , an html page is just a plain text file</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, technically, an html page is just a plain text file</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504668</id>
	<title>A C app would be much faster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proposed ratio of 1:10 is real, if not bigger. And here's why:</p><p>1.) For each request, PHP has to load entire application responsible for that particular response, including its configuration, etc. With memcache(d), you have to instantiate connection classes and reconfigure them, per request. Languages like C/C++, Python and Ruby have different architecture to begin with. They load ONCE and each request triggers a FUNCTION or METHOD of a class, with all the app-specific configuration, db and memcached connections done and configured on app init, NOT per request.</p><p>2.) TFA mentions microsecond relevance! Even a simple echo "Hello World" will take much more time than similar action in C. I have yet to see a PHP helloworld app that does it in under 1msec, let alone the microseconds required.</p><p>3.) Arrays in PHP are slow, being always hashmaps. Other data structures can speed up things. You don't always need hashmaps. SPLFixedArray() is a joke, btw, and available only as of 5.3. Can't compare it to a vector anyways, and lots of fixed structures can be represented by structs or classes in C which are anways faster than in PHP. Also the app can instantiate them once on init, and just (re)load when required.</p><p>4.) Even if all the app does it parse input vars and call memcache(d) / database funcs/methods to retrieve/store data, those calls are faster in C. Params can be parsed quicker in C, not requiring hashmaps for instance.</p><p>5.) FastCGI is crap. If this app were to be done in C, then it would require its own HTTP layer, epoll based (for Linux). It can take out all the crap in HTTP that is not requred to parse the AJAX calls, and does not need to be "generic" enough to deliver static content.</p><p>6.) For such dedicated and distributed deployments, garbage collection is sometimes not required. For instace, fixed-length stuctures can be preallocated upon app init, and the app can really take as much RAM as possible on startup. Yes, that would limit the MAX number of users/connections per server, but so what? The app dominates the server, nothing else is required to run (except basic OS environment for the app), so fixed memory consumption is not a problem.</p><p>7.) Even though each request has to wait for I/O of some sorts, either from memcache(d), from disk or from DB, you can process much more of these per front-end server and just scale backend servers as required. For example, with PHP your front-end server can serve 100k/sec, having X DB backends and Y memcached backends. With a C application, the front end can serve, say, 1M/sec. You still get to keep one front-end, even though you had to put more backends.</p><p>In short, you can significantly reduce the number of servers required if the app was written in C.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed ratio of 1 : 10 is real , if not bigger .
And here 's why : 1 .
) For each request , PHP has to load entire application responsible for that particular response , including its configuration , etc .
With memcache ( d ) , you have to instantiate connection classes and reconfigure them , per request .
Languages like C/C + + , Python and Ruby have different architecture to begin with .
They load ONCE and each request triggers a FUNCTION or METHOD of a class , with all the app-specific configuration , db and memcached connections done and configured on app init , NOT per request.2 .
) TFA mentions microsecond relevance !
Even a simple echo " Hello World " will take much more time than similar action in C. I have yet to see a PHP helloworld app that does it in under 1msec , let alone the microseconds required.3 .
) Arrays in PHP are slow , being always hashmaps .
Other data structures can speed up things .
You do n't always need hashmaps .
SPLFixedArray ( ) is a joke , btw , and available only as of 5.3 .
Ca n't compare it to a vector anyways , and lots of fixed structures can be represented by structs or classes in C which are anways faster than in PHP .
Also the app can instantiate them once on init , and just ( re ) load when required.4 .
) Even if all the app does it parse input vars and call memcache ( d ) / database funcs/methods to retrieve/store data , those calls are faster in C. Params can be parsed quicker in C , not requiring hashmaps for instance.5 .
) FastCGI is crap .
If this app were to be done in C , then it would require its own HTTP layer , epoll based ( for Linux ) .
It can take out all the crap in HTTP that is not requred to parse the AJAX calls , and does not need to be " generic " enough to deliver static content.6 .
) For such dedicated and distributed deployments , garbage collection is sometimes not required .
For instace , fixed-length stuctures can be preallocated upon app init , and the app can really take as much RAM as possible on startup .
Yes , that would limit the MAX number of users/connections per server , but so what ?
The app dominates the server , nothing else is required to run ( except basic OS environment for the app ) , so fixed memory consumption is not a problem.7 .
) Even though each request has to wait for I/O of some sorts , either from memcache ( d ) , from disk or from DB , you can process much more of these per front-end server and just scale backend servers as required .
For example , with PHP your front-end server can serve 100k/sec , having X DB backends and Y memcached backends .
With a C application , the front end can serve , say , 1M/sec .
You still get to keep one front-end , even though you had to put more backends.In short , you can significantly reduce the number of servers required if the app was written in C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed ratio of 1:10 is real, if not bigger.
And here's why:1.
) For each request, PHP has to load entire application responsible for that particular response, including its configuration, etc.
With memcache(d), you have to instantiate connection classes and reconfigure them, per request.
Languages like C/C++, Python and Ruby have different architecture to begin with.
They load ONCE and each request triggers a FUNCTION or METHOD of a class, with all the app-specific configuration, db and memcached connections done and configured on app init, NOT per request.2.
) TFA mentions microsecond relevance!
Even a simple echo "Hello World" will take much more time than similar action in C. I have yet to see a PHP helloworld app that does it in under 1msec, let alone the microseconds required.3.
) Arrays in PHP are slow, being always hashmaps.
Other data structures can speed up things.
You don't always need hashmaps.
SPLFixedArray() is a joke, btw, and available only as of 5.3.
Can't compare it to a vector anyways, and lots of fixed structures can be represented by structs or classes in C which are anways faster than in PHP.
Also the app can instantiate them once on init, and just (re)load when required.4.
) Even if all the app does it parse input vars and call memcache(d) / database funcs/methods to retrieve/store data, those calls are faster in C. Params can be parsed quicker in C, not requiring hashmaps for instance.5.
) FastCGI is crap.
If this app were to be done in C, then it would require its own HTTP layer, epoll based (for Linux).
It can take out all the crap in HTTP that is not requred to parse the AJAX calls, and does not need to be "generic" enough to deliver static content.6.
) For such dedicated and distributed deployments, garbage collection is sometimes not required.
For instace, fixed-length stuctures can be preallocated upon app init, and the app can really take as much RAM as possible on startup.
Yes, that would limit the MAX number of users/connections per server, but so what?
The app dominates the server, nothing else is required to run (except basic OS environment for the app), so fixed memory consumption is not a problem.7.
) Even though each request has to wait for I/O of some sorts, either from memcache(d), from disk or from DB, you can process much more of these per front-end server and just scale backend servers as required.
For example, with PHP your front-end server can serve 100k/sec, having X DB backends and Y memcached backends.
With a C application, the front end can serve, say, 1M/sec.
You still get to keep one front-end, even though you had to put more backends.In short, you can significantly reduce the number of servers required if the app was written in C.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504734</id>
	<title>Those in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones</title>
	<author>riffzifnab</author>
	<datestamp>1261331700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like he should re-write his webserver in C++ so it's not slashdotted so easily.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like he should re-write his webserver in C + + so it 's not slashdotted so easily .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like he should re-write his webserver in C++ so it's not slashdotted so easily.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507348</id>
	<title>Re:where did he get this factor?</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1261310040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, TFA is total bullshit. The PHP scripts probably spend 99\% of their time waiting on the network or on a database query. Rewriting in C++ would have virtually no gains, but development/maintenance effort would shoot way up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , TFA is total bullshit .
The PHP scripts probably spend 99 \ % of their time waiting on the network or on a database query .
Rewriting in C + + would have virtually no gains , but development/maintenance effort would shoot way up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, TFA is total bullshit.
The PHP scripts probably spend 99\% of their time waiting on the network or on a database query.
Rewriting in C++ would have virtually no gains, but development/maintenance effort would shoot way up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504310</id>
	<title>Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care about your environmentalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care about your environmentalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care about your environmentalism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</id>
	<title>Assumes PHP Dev Effort = C++ Dev Effort</title>
	<author>VampireByte</author>
	<datestamp>1261328220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about all the cycles compiling and debugging C++ code? Or all the trees torn down for C++ books? Or the environmental impact of C++ developers? I mean, have you ever had to share a cube with one of them? Pheewww.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all the cycles compiling and debugging C + + code ?
Or all the trees torn down for C + + books ?
Or the environmental impact of C + + developers ?
I mean , have you ever had to share a cube with one of them ?
Pheewww .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all the cycles compiling and debugging C++ code?
Or all the trees torn down for C++ books?
Or the environmental impact of C++ developers?
I mean, have you ever had to share a cube with one of them?
Pheewww.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510472</id>
	<title>Nah, Java is the real killer</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1261395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because I know this Java guy and he got the foulest breath you ever smelled before you nose shuts off.
</p><p>And since I am a PHPer and god's gift to woman kind (he decided they could do with a laugh) we can now safely conclude that 1. PHP 2. C++ 3. Java 999999999999999. ASP
</p><p>The original article is just silly however, C++ is overkill were you often end up writing stuff that has already been written and been written better then you can ever do yourself in the time a typical web project has.
</p><p>And that the author is full of shit can be clearly proven that he has NOT approached facebook with a sample of new code that would safe them a fortune. I myself have made very good money helping companies reduce their server needs, if he can shut so many servers of with his code, he can earn millions. But he isn't, is he? Perhaps because as a C++ web programmer he ain't used to actually getting a working site out on time and on budget that can be maintained easily to deal with rapidly changing demands?
</p><p>I seen "real" programmers completly loose it on web-projects. They want to do design and analysis when the time to setup the schedule is the time you got for the entire project. Yeah yeah, if you give them a year or two, the product is no doubt 100\% better then the 2 weeks PHP job, but the web moves a bit faster then that boys. I have seen a project where a traditional programmer sought out a framework solution that was just perfect. Nobody had used it but no problem, he had setup a 1 month training schedule for everyone. The entire project was supposed to be delivered in 1 month.
</p><p>PHP works people because it works FAST. It allows you to drill straight down to the thing you want to do with a website rather then first having to develop your own solution for things that have already been done. Yes, this ease has lead to a LOT of PHP developers who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, but this is like saying that because there are so many idiotic windows users, all windows users are idiots. Or indeed me saying that because I only seen C++/Java developers who over-engineered, all C++/Java developers do this.
</p><p>And as for speed, when you use compiled PHP, it really ain't that much slower. Sure, you could optimize the  hell out of your website with C++, but only if you spend ages doing this, making your site obsolete by the time it launches and extremely hard to adapt as demands change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because I know this Java guy and he got the foulest breath you ever smelled before you nose shuts off .
And since I am a PHPer and god 's gift to woman kind ( he decided they could do with a laugh ) we can now safely conclude that 1 .
PHP 2 .
C + + 3 .
Java 999999999999999 .
ASP The original article is just silly however , C + + is overkill were you often end up writing stuff that has already been written and been written better then you can ever do yourself in the time a typical web project has .
And that the author is full of shit can be clearly proven that he has NOT approached facebook with a sample of new code that would safe them a fortune .
I myself have made very good money helping companies reduce their server needs , if he can shut so many servers of with his code , he can earn millions .
But he is n't , is he ?
Perhaps because as a C + + web programmer he ai n't used to actually getting a working site out on time and on budget that can be maintained easily to deal with rapidly changing demands ?
I seen " real " programmers completly loose it on web-projects .
They want to do design and analysis when the time to setup the schedule is the time you got for the entire project .
Yeah yeah , if you give them a year or two , the product is no doubt 100 \ % better then the 2 weeks PHP job , but the web moves a bit faster then that boys .
I have seen a project where a traditional programmer sought out a framework solution that was just perfect .
Nobody had used it but no problem , he had setup a 1 month training schedule for everyone .
The entire project was supposed to be delivered in 1 month .
PHP works people because it works FAST .
It allows you to drill straight down to the thing you want to do with a website rather then first having to develop your own solution for things that have already been done .
Yes , this ease has lead to a LOT of PHP developers who could n't code their way out of a paper bag , but this is like saying that because there are so many idiotic windows users , all windows users are idiots .
Or indeed me saying that because I only seen C + + /Java developers who over-engineered , all C + + /Java developers do this .
And as for speed , when you use compiled PHP , it really ai n't that much slower .
Sure , you could optimize the hell out of your website with C + + , but only if you spend ages doing this , making your site obsolete by the time it launches and extremely hard to adapt as demands change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because I know this Java guy and he got the foulest breath you ever smelled before you nose shuts off.
And since I am a PHPer and god's gift to woman kind (he decided they could do with a laugh) we can now safely conclude that 1.
PHP 2.
C++ 3.
Java 999999999999999.
ASP
The original article is just silly however, C++ is overkill were you often end up writing stuff that has already been written and been written better then you can ever do yourself in the time a typical web project has.
And that the author is full of shit can be clearly proven that he has NOT approached facebook with a sample of new code that would safe them a fortune.
I myself have made very good money helping companies reduce their server needs, if he can shut so many servers of with his code, he can earn millions.
But he isn't, is he?
Perhaps because as a C++ web programmer he ain't used to actually getting a working site out on time and on budget that can be maintained easily to deal with rapidly changing demands?
I seen "real" programmers completly loose it on web-projects.
They want to do design and analysis when the time to setup the schedule is the time you got for the entire project.
Yeah yeah, if you give them a year or two, the product is no doubt 100\% better then the 2 weeks PHP job, but the web moves a bit faster then that boys.
I have seen a project where a traditional programmer sought out a framework solution that was just perfect.
Nobody had used it but no problem, he had setup a 1 month training schedule for everyone.
The entire project was supposed to be delivered in 1 month.
PHP works people because it works FAST.
It allows you to drill straight down to the thing you want to do with a website rather then first having to develop your own solution for things that have already been done.
Yes, this ease has lead to a LOT of PHP developers who couldn't code their way out of a paper bag, but this is like saying that because there are so many idiotic windows users, all windows users are idiots.
Or indeed me saying that because I only seen C++/Java developers who over-engineered, all C++/Java developers do this.
And as for speed, when you use compiled PHP, it really ain't that much slower.
Sure, you could optimize the  hell out of your website with C++, but only if you spend ages doing this, making your site obsolete by the time it launches and extremely hard to adapt as demands change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506944</id>
	<title>Re:PHP vs. C++</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1261306800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear you.</p><p>This couldn't have back fired on this clown any worse.  I really hope he didn't make a fool of himself telling everyone he was going to get rick of consulting from this.  Cause man he ain't getting anywhere near my work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear you.This could n't have back fired on this clown any worse .
I really hope he did n't make a fool of himself telling everyone he was going to get rick of consulting from this .
Cause man he ai n't getting anywhere near my work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear you.This couldn't have back fired on this clown any worse.
I really hope he didn't make a fool of himself telling everyone he was going to get rick of consulting from this.
Cause man he ain't getting anywhere near my work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338</id>
	<title>Umm... no.</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1261328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the author seriously believe that Facebook isn't running some sort of PHP compiling/caching service, like APC or something similar?</p><p>It would be ridiculous for them NOT to be running something like that, which eliminates much of the advantage C++ would enjoy through being pre-compiled.  While there still may be a reduction if Facebook were magically changed to precompiled C++ code, the reduction would be fairly minimal.  In addition to that, you'd need to factor in the debugging and coding/compiling times, which would exceed the PHP times by an order of magnitude at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the author seriously believe that Facebook is n't running some sort of PHP compiling/caching service , like APC or something similar ? It would be ridiculous for them NOT to be running something like that , which eliminates much of the advantage C + + would enjoy through being pre-compiled .
While there still may be a reduction if Facebook were magically changed to precompiled C + + code , the reduction would be fairly minimal .
In addition to that , you 'd need to factor in the debugging and coding/compiling times , which would exceed the PHP times by an order of magnitude at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the author seriously believe that Facebook isn't running some sort of PHP compiling/caching service, like APC or something similar?It would be ridiculous for them NOT to be running something like that, which eliminates much of the advantage C++ would enjoy through being pre-compiled.
While there still may be a reduction if Facebook were magically changed to precompiled C++ code, the reduction would be fairly minimal.
In addition to that, you'd need to factor in the debugging and coding/compiling times, which would exceed the PHP times by an order of magnitude at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507502</id>
	<title>Re:Assumes PHP Dev Effort = C++ Dev Effort</title>
	<author>WinstonWolfIT</author>
	<datestamp>1261311720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You need to look at the upfront cost of the C++ developer -- including his personal impact on the environment -- against the ongoing higher cost of php. What's the ROI of a doubled development footprint against a 1/10 maintenance footprint? 1 year? 10?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to look at the upfront cost of the C + + developer -- including his personal impact on the environment -- against the ongoing higher cost of php .
What 's the ROI of a doubled development footprint against a 1/10 maintenance footprint ?
1 year ?
10 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to look at the upfront cost of the C++ developer -- including his personal impact on the environment -- against the ongoing higher cost of php.
What's the ROI of a doubled development footprint against a 1/10 maintenance footprint?
1 year?
10?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</id>
	<title>10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's crazy. 10:1 is incredibly unfair. Especially when you consider that a cached C++ page takes just as much time to return as a cached PHP page. On top of that, majority of the work done is just searching a database. If would imagine a large part of processing a page is in getting and returning data, which is then up-to-the database. He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops, math that type of crap. Says nothing about querying a database then doing some minor presentation related logic. If I had to guess, for a web page the average "efficiency gain" of using C++ would be under 2x.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's crazy .
10 : 1 is incredibly unfair .
Especially when you consider that a cached C + + page takes just as much time to return as a cached PHP page .
On top of that , majority of the work done is just searching a database .
If would imagine a large part of processing a page is in getting and returning data , which is then up-to-the database .
He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops , math that type of crap .
Says nothing about querying a database then doing some minor presentation related logic .
If I had to guess , for a web page the average " efficiency gain " of using C + + would be under 2x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's crazy.
10:1 is incredibly unfair.
Especially when you consider that a cached C++ page takes just as much time to return as a cached PHP page.
On top of that, majority of the work done is just searching a database.
If would imagine a large part of processing a page is in getting and returning data, which is then up-to-the database.
He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops, math that type of crap.
Says nothing about querying a database then doing some minor presentation related logic.
If I had to guess, for a web page the average "efficiency gain" of using C++ would be under 2x.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504494</id>
	<title>optimization</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1261329840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's likely most of the overhead in Facebook's server farm is database-related and not PHP-related, meaning switching to C++ would not help much.  Also, depending on what tasks the PHP codeebase is performing, one can write binary libraries to speed up critical portions of the operation, improving performance to near-total-binary without reducing maintainability.  I wouldn't be surprised if the people at Face book were already aware of this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's likely most of the overhead in Facebook 's server farm is database-related and not PHP-related , meaning switching to C + + would not help much .
Also , depending on what tasks the PHP codeebase is performing , one can write binary libraries to speed up critical portions of the operation , improving performance to near-total-binary without reducing maintainability .
I would n't be surprised if the people at Face book were already aware of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's likely most of the overhead in Facebook's server farm is database-related and not PHP-related, meaning switching to C++ would not help much.
Also, depending on what tasks the PHP codeebase is performing, one can write binary libraries to speed up critical portions of the operation, improving performance to near-total-binary without reducing maintainability.
I wouldn't be surprised if the people at Face book were already aware of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505882</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I have, massive amounts of it.</p><p>Guess what, PHP is generally worse.</p><p>PHP is far younger and PHP devs are generally less experienced than the devs who write the C code I deal with.</p><p>If you think language has anything to do with ability to write readable code I suggest you get a few more years and languages under your belt.</p><p>Any language can be ugly, web scripting languages are generally the worst in this respect due to the people who intermix logic and presentation layers into one mess of code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I have , massive amounts of it.Guess what , PHP is generally worse.PHP is far younger and PHP devs are generally less experienced than the devs who write the C code I deal with.If you think language has anything to do with ability to write readable code I suggest you get a few more years and languages under your belt.Any language can be ugly , web scripting languages are generally the worst in this respect due to the people who intermix logic and presentation layers into one mess of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I have, massive amounts of it.Guess what, PHP is generally worse.PHP is far younger and PHP devs are generally less experienced than the devs who write the C code I deal with.If you think language has anything to do with ability to write readable code I suggest you get a few more years and languages under your belt.Any language can be ugly, web scripting languages are generally the worst in this respect due to the people who intermix logic and presentation layers into one mess of code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504334</id>
	<title>Just think how much greener they could be...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1261328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...were they to rewrite it all in assembly language!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...were they to rewrite it all in assembly language !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...were they to rewrite it all in assembly language!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504264</id>
	<title>Languages not for everyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The thing that this article fails to see, is that some languages aren't for everyone. A PHP programmer who turns out good PHP code isn't going to magically make the same level of code for C++. It also doesn't see that Facebook can't be down for longer than an hour at most, otherwise risk user outrage. After all, they have many, many, many users and for it to go down for a day would be akin to Google going down for a day or so. The difference being that if Google is down for a day, most users can use Yahoo, Bing, Live, WolframAlpha, etc. to search. Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that this article fails to see , is that some languages are n't for everyone .
A PHP programmer who turns out good PHP code is n't going to magically make the same level of code for C + + .
It also does n't see that Facebook ca n't be down for longer than an hour at most , otherwise risk user outrage .
After all , they have many , many , many users and for it to go down for a day would be akin to Google going down for a day or so .
The difference being that if Google is down for a day , most users can use Yahoo , Bing , Live , WolframAlpha , etc .
to search .
Not every Facebook user has a MySpace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that this article fails to see, is that some languages aren't for everyone.
A PHP programmer who turns out good PHP code isn't going to magically make the same level of code for C++.
It also doesn't see that Facebook can't be down for longer than an hour at most, otherwise risk user outrage.
After all, they have many, many, many users and for it to go down for a day would be akin to Google going down for a day or so.
The difference being that if Google is down for a day, most users can use Yahoo, Bing, Live, WolframAlpha, etc.
to search.
Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402</id>
	<title>PHP harder to test than C++</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261336800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In general code written in a dynamically typed language like PHP is harder to test than code written in a statically typed language like C++. The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time, and with complete code coverage at that. Misspelled variables and other minor typos anyone?</p><p>In a sufficiently large project, all the time one might save not going through an extended compile cycle quickly gets eaten up by the extra testing overhead, testing which for user interface intensive applications is rather difficult to automate.</p><p>Of course the developers have to know what they are doing. If you run into more than one dangling point or array overflow problem per ten thousand lines of code, someone is either ignorant or careless. C++ programming is not for code monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In general code written in a dynamically typed language like PHP is harder to test than code written in a statically typed language like C + + .
The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically can not catch until run time , and with complete code coverage at that .
Misspelled variables and other minor typos anyone ? In a sufficiently large project , all the time one might save not going through an extended compile cycle quickly gets eaten up by the extra testing overhead , testing which for user interface intensive applications is rather difficult to automate.Of course the developers have to know what they are doing .
If you run into more than one dangling point or array overflow problem per ten thousand lines of code , someone is either ignorant or careless .
C + + programming is not for code monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general code written in a dynamically typed language like PHP is harder to test than code written in a statically typed language like C++.
The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time, and with complete code coverage at that.
Misspelled variables and other minor typos anyone?In a sufficiently large project, all the time one might save not going through an extended compile cycle quickly gets eaten up by the extra testing overhead, testing which for user interface intensive applications is rather difficult to automate.Of course the developers have to know what they are doing.
If you run into more than one dangling point or array overflow problem per ten thousand lines of code, someone is either ignorant or careless.
C++ programming is not for code monkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505676</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261339380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's crazy. 10:1 is incredibly unfair. Especially when you consider that a cached C++ page takes just as much time to return as a cached PHP page. On top of that, majority of the work done is just searching a database. If would imagine a large part of processing a page is in getting and returning data, which is then up-to-the database. He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops, math that type of crap. Says nothing about querying a database then doing some minor presentation related logic. If I had to guess, for a web page the average "efficiency gain" of using C++ would be under 2x.</p></div><p>The referenced facebook blog article suggests that they are not actually caching generated pages (since obviously most of them or individualized as most people are logged in), but only database queries in a big memcached layer.</p><p>Moreover, did you know that since multi-tasking OS'es were invented some 20 (?) years ago, the kernel will switch to another process while a process is waiting for I/O? Thus even if indeed there is a lot of waiting involved in generating another process, the waiting does not consume CPU resources and is certainly not a reason to add servers...</p><p>And since most of their servers run PHP/Apache, and they admit themselves that it is a delicate balance between lousy run time performance and ease of programming (but a nightmare to maintain), we should perhaps believe that their PHP is somewhat a bottleneck ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's crazy .
10 : 1 is incredibly unfair .
Especially when you consider that a cached C + + page takes just as much time to return as a cached PHP page .
On top of that , majority of the work done is just searching a database .
If would imagine a large part of processing a page is in getting and returning data , which is then up-to-the database .
He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops , math that type of crap .
Says nothing about querying a database then doing some minor presentation related logic .
If I had to guess , for a web page the average " efficiency gain " of using C + + would be under 2x.The referenced facebook blog article suggests that they are not actually caching generated pages ( since obviously most of them or individualized as most people are logged in ) , but only database queries in a big memcached layer.Moreover , did you know that since multi-tasking OS'es were invented some 20 ( ?
) years ago , the kernel will switch to another process while a process is waiting for I/O ?
Thus even if indeed there is a lot of waiting involved in generating another process , the waiting does not consume CPU resources and is certainly not a reason to add servers...And since most of their servers run PHP/Apache , and they admit themselves that it is a delicate balance between lousy run time performance and ease of programming ( but a nightmare to maintain ) , we should perhaps believe that their PHP is somewhat a bottleneck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's crazy.
10:1 is incredibly unfair.
Especially when you consider that a cached C++ page takes just as much time to return as a cached PHP page.
On top of that, majority of the work done is just searching a database.
If would imagine a large part of processing a page is in getting and returning data, which is then up-to-the database.
He is using stats that say PHP is 10 slower for running through loops, math that type of crap.
Says nothing about querying a database then doing some minor presentation related logic.
If I had to guess, for a web page the average "efficiency gain" of using C++ would be under 2x.The referenced facebook blog article suggests that they are not actually caching generated pages (since obviously most of them or individualized as most people are logged in), but only database queries in a big memcached layer.Moreover, did you know that since multi-tasking OS'es were invented some 20 (?
) years ago, the kernel will switch to another process while a process is waiting for I/O?
Thus even if indeed there is a lot of waiting involved in generating another process, the waiting does not consume CPU resources and is certainly not a reason to add servers...And since most of their servers run PHP/Apache, and they admit themselves that it is a delicate balance between lousy run time performance and ease of programming (but a nightmare to maintain), we should perhaps believe that their PHP is somewhat a bottleneck ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505482</id>
	<title>Mod SoulSkill as both -1 Troll and -1 Flamebait</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261337580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, why was this even posted.  While we are at it, lets Mod <b>SoulSkill</b> as +1 Revenue Generator so even then this should get scored as -1 "What! Are you fucking kidding me!" ( with apologies to Robbin Williams )</p><p>But on a more on-topic note, PHP and C++ are languages for two totally different things and if <b>SoulSkill</b> doesn't know that, he has no business being a "editor".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , why was this even posted .
While we are at it , lets Mod SoulSkill as + 1 Revenue Generator so even then this should get scored as -1 " What !
Are you fucking kidding me !
" ( with apologies to Robbin Williams ) But on a more on-topic note , PHP and C + + are languages for two totally different things and if SoulSkill does n't know that , he has no business being a " editor " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, why was this even posted.
While we are at it, lets Mod SoulSkill as +1 Revenue Generator so even then this should get scored as -1 "What!
Are you fucking kidding me!
" ( with apologies to Robbin Williams )But on a more on-topic note, PHP and C++ are languages for two totally different things and if SoulSkill doesn't know that, he has no business being a "editor".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504288</id>
	<title>it's stoopid because</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CO2 is NOT pollution!  Its what you exhale for godsake!  We are carbon life forms!  Really, I expect more from<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but that just goes to show how thorough the brainwashing has been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is NOT pollution !
Its what you exhale for godsake !
We are carbon life forms !
Really , I expect more from / .
but that just goes to show how thorough the brainwashing has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is NOT pollution!
Its what you exhale for godsake!
We are carbon life forms!
Really, I expect more from /.
but that just goes to show how thorough the brainwashing has been.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507420</id>
	<title>Not really...</title>
	<author>Chris Snook</author>
	<datestamp>1261310700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After a recent change in hardware platform for new acquisitions, Facebook was surprised to get a speedup from RDDR2-800 memory vs. FB-DDR2-667 memory, because many of their apps are actually memory-bound.  They're a major user of memcached, so the real limiting factor on how many servers they can power down is how much RAM they can stuff in a server.  The CPU utilization comes somewhere after memory/disk throughput/latency in power conservation considerations.  Sure, there's a small marginal difference in how much energy they burn through on PHP code vs. C++ code, and a small marginal difference in how much RAM they need free for PHP vs. C++ code, but for the effort it would take them to switch to C++, they could save a lot more energy by optimizing how they use memcached.  Which is exactly what they're doing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a recent change in hardware platform for new acquisitions , Facebook was surprised to get a speedup from RDDR2-800 memory vs. FB-DDR2-667 memory , because many of their apps are actually memory-bound .
They 're a major user of memcached , so the real limiting factor on how many servers they can power down is how much RAM they can stuff in a server .
The CPU utilization comes somewhere after memory/disk throughput/latency in power conservation considerations .
Sure , there 's a small marginal difference in how much energy they burn through on PHP code vs. C + + code , and a small marginal difference in how much RAM they need free for PHP vs. C + + code , but for the effort it would take them to switch to C + + , they could save a lot more energy by optimizing how they use memcached .
Which is exactly what they 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a recent change in hardware platform for new acquisitions, Facebook was surprised to get a speedup from RDDR2-800 memory vs. FB-DDR2-667 memory, because many of their apps are actually memory-bound.
They're a major user of memcached, so the real limiting factor on how many servers they can power down is how much RAM they can stuff in a server.
The CPU utilization comes somewhere after memory/disk throughput/latency in power conservation considerations.
Sure, there's a small marginal difference in how much energy they burn through on PHP code vs. C++ code, and a small marginal difference in how much RAM they need free for PHP vs. C++ code, but for the effort it would take them to switch to C++, they could save a lot more energy by optimizing how they use memcached.
Which is exactly what they're doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30517456</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick question, what is a cached C++ page?</p><p>The rest of your post was ignored.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick question , what is a cached C + + page ? The rest of your post was ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick question, what is a cached C++ page?The rest of your post was ignored.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505504</id>
	<title>Re: FORTRAN</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261337940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FORTRAN is designed to do numeric processing.  FORTRAN compilers are very good at optimizing such code.  FORTRAN is not at all optimal for doing much of anything else.</p><p>Similarly, with the right framework, someone might write a general purpose web application in C++, because you can make string processing code a relatively painless exercise with the right class libraries.  Plain old C, on the other hand, is much worse - essentially a language designed not to do string handling very well or very reliably.</p><p>Even with C++, there is an enormous interoperability and efficiency problem with strings of different flavors, and I would put rank that problem as #1 on a list of why few people do general purpose business programming in C++.  I have *never* seen a standard C++ library compatible C++ string implementation that was worth using in both compile time and run time efficiency terms.  Certainly the implementation that comes with GCC doesn't qualify...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FORTRAN is designed to do numeric processing .
FORTRAN compilers are very good at optimizing such code .
FORTRAN is not at all optimal for doing much of anything else.Similarly , with the right framework , someone might write a general purpose web application in C + + , because you can make string processing code a relatively painless exercise with the right class libraries .
Plain old C , on the other hand , is much worse - essentially a language designed not to do string handling very well or very reliably.Even with C + + , there is an enormous interoperability and efficiency problem with strings of different flavors , and I would put rank that problem as # 1 on a list of why few people do general purpose business programming in C + + .
I have * never * seen a standard C + + library compatible C + + string implementation that was worth using in both compile time and run time efficiency terms .
Certainly the implementation that comes with GCC does n't qualify.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORTRAN is designed to do numeric processing.
FORTRAN compilers are very good at optimizing such code.
FORTRAN is not at all optimal for doing much of anything else.Similarly, with the right framework, someone might write a general purpose web application in C++, because you can make string processing code a relatively painless exercise with the right class libraries.
Plain old C, on the other hand, is much worse - essentially a language designed not to do string handling very well or very reliably.Even with C++, there is an enormous interoperability and efficiency problem with strings of different flavors, and I would put rank that problem as #1 on a list of why few people do general purpose business programming in C++.
I have *never* seen a standard C++ library compatible C++ string implementation that was worth using in both compile time and run time efficiency terms.
Certainly the implementation that comes with GCC doesn't qualify...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504514</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>djmurdoch</author>
	<datestamp>1261330020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've no idea about PHP, but the usual problem with interpreted languages is that their model of the computer is too high level to be a good match to the hardware.  To compile to fast code, the operations being performed need to map predictably to machine instructions.  If the same a+b line could, depending on what preceded it, mean adding integers, adding floating point values, or concatenating strings, then it's not going to compile to anything as fast as a statically typed language where it might be one or two machine instructions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've no idea about PHP , but the usual problem with interpreted languages is that their model of the computer is too high level to be a good match to the hardware .
To compile to fast code , the operations being performed need to map predictably to machine instructions .
If the same a + b line could , depending on what preceded it , mean adding integers , adding floating point values , or concatenating strings , then it 's not going to compile to anything as fast as a statically typed language where it might be one or two machine instructions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've no idea about PHP, but the usual problem with interpreted languages is that their model of the computer is too high level to be a good match to the hardware.
To compile to fast code, the operations being performed need to map predictably to machine instructions.
If the same a+b line could, depending on what preceded it, mean adding integers, adding floating point values, or concatenating strings, then it's not going to compile to anything as fast as a statically typed language where it might be one or two machine instructions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513258</id>
	<title>Re:A trolling weak argument</title>
	<author>abegosum</author>
	<datestamp>1261416720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Logic, for the win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Logic , for the win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Logic, for the win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505528</id>
	<title>Re:Author needs a clue about metrics</title>
	<author>luzr</author>
	<datestamp>1261338300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All of that is expecting that C++ would just replace PHP scripts.
<p>
Anyway, if you want to be really fast, you could completely rewrite the whole thing and add huge data caches managed by C++, removing most of DB traffic in the process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of that is expecting that C + + would just replace PHP scripts .
Anyway , if you want to be really fast , you could completely rewrite the whole thing and add huge data caches managed by C + + , removing most of DB traffic in the process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of that is expecting that C++ would just replace PHP scripts.
Anyway, if you want to be really fast, you could completely rewrite the whole thing and add huge data caches managed by C++, removing most of DB traffic in the process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508328</id>
	<title>Loose typing and dynamic data structures</title>
	<author>bigtrike</author>
	<datestamp>1261322040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that when you've got poorly defined data structures and typing most of the overhead can't be compiled out, as your C/C++ program still needs to deal with all of the indirection and type conversion.  Due to PHP's loose typing, the type of a variable at any given time cannot be predicted, as it may vary due to user input.  The problem is that the language provides no mechanism of forcing a given variable to any type or creating any data structures.  Even in compiled code, even a simple addition of 1 to an integer must involve pointer dereferencing and lots type changing bounds checking.</p><p>The code could be optimized if the type of a given variable could be forced for its entire life in scope, which would allow to compiler to avoid a lot of repetitive logic for each operation.  Specifying strict data structures would also be very helpful, as the compiler could then avoid finding the pointer in a key hash and instead it could hard code the offset from the start of the structure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that when you 've got poorly defined data structures and typing most of the overhead ca n't be compiled out , as your C/C + + program still needs to deal with all of the indirection and type conversion .
Due to PHP 's loose typing , the type of a variable at any given time can not be predicted , as it may vary due to user input .
The problem is that the language provides no mechanism of forcing a given variable to any type or creating any data structures .
Even in compiled code , even a simple addition of 1 to an integer must involve pointer dereferencing and lots type changing bounds checking.The code could be optimized if the type of a given variable could be forced for its entire life in scope , which would allow to compiler to avoid a lot of repetitive logic for each operation .
Specifying strict data structures would also be very helpful , as the compiler could then avoid finding the pointer in a key hash and instead it could hard code the offset from the start of the structure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that when you've got poorly defined data structures and typing most of the overhead can't be compiled out, as your C/C++ program still needs to deal with all of the indirection and type conversion.
Due to PHP's loose typing, the type of a variable at any given time cannot be predicted, as it may vary due to user input.
The problem is that the language provides no mechanism of forcing a given variable to any type or creating any data structures.
Even in compiled code, even a simple addition of 1 to an integer must involve pointer dereferencing and lots type changing bounds checking.The code could be optimized if the type of a given variable could be forced for its entire life in scope, which would allow to compiler to avoid a lot of repetitive logic for each operation.
Specifying strict data structures would also be very helpful, as the compiler could then avoid finding the pointer in a key hash and instead it could hard code the offset from the start of the structure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507454</id>
	<title>Re:Languages not for everyone</title>
	<author>vux984</author>
	<datestamp>1261311060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The difference being that if Google is down for a day, most users can use Yahoo, Bing, Live, WolframAlpha, etc. to search. Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.</i></p><p>No, the difference being that if facebook went down, people would discover they didn't actually need anything it does after all.</p><p>Sort of like when their cable goes out. You pace aimlessly for a few minutes, and then do something else with your new found free time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference being that if Google is down for a day , most users can use Yahoo , Bing , Live , WolframAlpha , etc .
to search .
Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.No , the difference being that if facebook went down , people would discover they did n't actually need anything it does after all.Sort of like when their cable goes out .
You pace aimlessly for a few minutes , and then do something else with your new found free time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference being that if Google is down for a day, most users can use Yahoo, Bing, Live, WolframAlpha, etc.
to search.
Not every Facebook user has a MySpace.No, the difference being that if facebook went down, people would discover they didn't actually need anything it does after all.Sort of like when their cable goes out.
You pace aimlessly for a few minutes, and then do something else with your new found free time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509632</id>
	<title>But what about the environmental impact of...</title>
	<author>Zadaz</author>
	<datestamp>1261338660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what's the environmental impact of making up 'facts', turning that into smoke, and then trying to blow that smoke up my ass?</p><p>A lot of people are getting bent out of shape by this thing, but I can't see how anyone can begin to take it seriously.  The whole thing is so completely bogus and made up that giving it anything but a good hearty laugh</p><p>Thought I'd love it if my randomly made up factoids merited a front page story on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what 's the environmental impact of making up 'facts ' , turning that into smoke , and then trying to blow that smoke up my ass ? A lot of people are getting bent out of shape by this thing , but I ca n't see how anyone can begin to take it seriously .
The whole thing is so completely bogus and made up that giving it anything but a good hearty laughThought I 'd love it if my randomly made up factoids merited a front page story on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what's the environmental impact of making up 'facts', turning that into smoke, and then trying to blow that smoke up my ass?A lot of people are getting bent out of shape by this thing, but I can't see how anyone can begin to take it seriously.
The whole thing is so completely bogus and made up that giving it anything but a good hearty laughThought I'd love it if my randomly made up factoids merited a front page story on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509090</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I started on C and C++, and have recently done C# and Java web programming.</p><p>We did similar apps in PHP in a quarter or less of the time, and they actually ran many times faster with the very basic magic of an opcode cache and mod\_gzip.  The PHP site I worked for merged with a Java shop and the Java team got ripped into for taking months to do what our team did in weeks or days.</p><p>Now as an "enterprise" developer at my latest job, I talk to experienced C# lead developers who manually remove the white space from their HTML to improve download speed.  ???  And the hodgepodge of java web frameworks piled on buggy java app servers is even worse.</p><p>If you want to do web programming, use the right tool to get the job done right and fast.  Developers and development time cost a business a hell of a lot more.  People saying "do web development in C" have never worked on a real website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I started on C and C + + , and have recently done C # and Java web programming.We did similar apps in PHP in a quarter or less of the time , and they actually ran many times faster with the very basic magic of an opcode cache and mod \ _gzip .
The PHP site I worked for merged with a Java shop and the Java team got ripped into for taking months to do what our team did in weeks or days.Now as an " enterprise " developer at my latest job , I talk to experienced C # lead developers who manually remove the white space from their HTML to improve download speed .
? ? ? And the hodgepodge of java web frameworks piled on buggy java app servers is even worse.If you want to do web programming , use the right tool to get the job done right and fast .
Developers and development time cost a business a hell of a lot more .
People saying " do web development in C " have never worked on a real website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I started on C and C++, and have recently done C# and Java web programming.We did similar apps in PHP in a quarter or less of the time, and they actually ran many times faster with the very basic magic of an opcode cache and mod\_gzip.
The PHP site I worked for merged with a Java shop and the Java team got ripped into for taking months to do what our team did in weeks or days.Now as an "enterprise" developer at my latest job, I talk to experienced C# lead developers who manually remove the white space from their HTML to improve download speed.
???  And the hodgepodge of java web frameworks piled on buggy java app servers is even worse.If you want to do web programming, use the right tool to get the job done right and fast.
Developers and development time cost a business a hell of a lot more.
People saying "do web development in C" have never worked on a real website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504600</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why stop there.  FPGAs FTW!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop there .
FPGAs FTW ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop there.
FPGAs FTW!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504352</id>
	<title>Even if PHP is running 10 times slower...</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1261328940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm assuming the claim about 10 times is true, which I don't really think so...<br>But they could have done something  - like precompile the PHP, just like JIT of Java, to make it better or on par with compiled C program.<br>There are PHP accelerators like Zend Accelerator for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming the claim about 10 times is true , which I do n't really think so...But they could have done something - like precompile the PHP , just like JIT of Java , to make it better or on par with compiled C program.There are PHP accelerators like Zend Accelerator for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming the claim about 10 times is true, which I don't really think so...But they could have done something  - like precompile the PHP, just like JIT of Java, to make it better or on par with compiled C program.There are PHP accelerators like Zend Accelerator for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509236</id>
	<title>Re:Assumes PHP Dev Effort = C++ Dev Effort</title>
	<author>vtstarin</author>
	<datestamp>1261332600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have to include facebook users to this list too.

Humans do breath out CO2 right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to include facebook users to this list too .
Humans do breath out CO2 right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to include facebook users to this list too.
Humans do breath out CO2 right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504638</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Xeriar</author>
	<datestamp>1261330920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP's primary issue in the database department is it doesn't have a clean way of say, maintaining prepared statement declarations across connection instances. Which is frustrating. APC's handling of shared memory is not the best, either, and the memcached extensions for it need polish. Don't get me started on how PHP treats constants.</p><p>Where PHP really fails, however, is in memory usage. It takes up dozens of times as much RAM as a well-built C program would. Facebook would not reduce their computer count by a factor of ten because PHP is that much less efficient at its job, but because more memory would be available in a given machine to handle more instances at once.</p><p>Note: PHP 5.3 addresses a lot of this, but though I haven't tested it, I doubt the memory efficiency of PHP is going to get far into the double-digit percentiles of C++ in one shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP 's primary issue in the database department is it does n't have a clean way of say , maintaining prepared statement declarations across connection instances .
Which is frustrating .
APC 's handling of shared memory is not the best , either , and the memcached extensions for it need polish .
Do n't get me started on how PHP treats constants.Where PHP really fails , however , is in memory usage .
It takes up dozens of times as much RAM as a well-built C program would .
Facebook would not reduce their computer count by a factor of ten because PHP is that much less efficient at its job , but because more memory would be available in a given machine to handle more instances at once.Note : PHP 5.3 addresses a lot of this , but though I have n't tested it , I doubt the memory efficiency of PHP is going to get far into the double-digit percentiles of C + + in one shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP's primary issue in the database department is it doesn't have a clean way of say, maintaining prepared statement declarations across connection instances.
Which is frustrating.
APC's handling of shared memory is not the best, either, and the memcached extensions for it need polish.
Don't get me started on how PHP treats constants.Where PHP really fails, however, is in memory usage.
It takes up dozens of times as much RAM as a well-built C program would.
Facebook would not reduce their computer count by a factor of ten because PHP is that much less efficient at its job, but because more memory would be available in a given machine to handle more instances at once.Note: PHP 5.3 addresses a lot of this, but though I haven't tested it, I doubt the memory efficiency of PHP is going to get far into the double-digit percentiles of C++ in one shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506810</id>
	<title>How much CO2 is your code producing?</title>
	<author>skaralic</author>
	<datestamp>1261305780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was interested in how many kgs of coal a badly written Flash Ad would consume. I did some quick calculations based on the typical Wattage of a desktop and assumed a 10 second view by 1 million people over the course of a year. This assumes that the crappy Flash Ad consumed 100\% of a core. I also assumed that all power comes from coal (most of it in the US does).

That's a lot of assumptions but should still get us in the "ballpark" for the final figure which, to my surprise, was quite high! I estimated that this would consume around 90 TONS OF COAL!

Looking at the figure I am convinced that I made a mistake somewhere in my reasoning, calculations or raw data but I haven't found any problems yet.

I would appreciate any interested Slashdotters to set me straight or confirm my work. Here's my blog article with all the calculations on it: <a href="http://blog.bit-matrix.com/2009/01/20/how-green-is-your-code/" title="bit-matrix.com" rel="nofollow">http://blog.bit-matrix.com/2009/01/20/how-green-is-your-code/</a> [bit-matrix.com]

Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was interested in how many kgs of coal a badly written Flash Ad would consume .
I did some quick calculations based on the typical Wattage of a desktop and assumed a 10 second view by 1 million people over the course of a year .
This assumes that the crappy Flash Ad consumed 100 \ % of a core .
I also assumed that all power comes from coal ( most of it in the US does ) .
That 's a lot of assumptions but should still get us in the " ballpark " for the final figure which , to my surprise , was quite high !
I estimated that this would consume around 90 TONS OF COAL !
Looking at the figure I am convinced that I made a mistake somewhere in my reasoning , calculations or raw data but I have n't found any problems yet .
I would appreciate any interested Slashdotters to set me straight or confirm my work .
Here 's my blog article with all the calculations on it : http : //blog.bit-matrix.com/2009/01/20/how-green-is-your-code/ [ bit-matrix.com ] Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was interested in how many kgs of coal a badly written Flash Ad would consume.
I did some quick calculations based on the typical Wattage of a desktop and assumed a 10 second view by 1 million people over the course of a year.
This assumes that the crappy Flash Ad consumed 100\% of a core.
I also assumed that all power comes from coal (most of it in the US does).
That's a lot of assumptions but should still get us in the "ballpark" for the final figure which, to my surprise, was quite high!
I estimated that this would consume around 90 TONS OF COAL!
Looking at the figure I am convinced that I made a mistake somewhere in my reasoning, calculations or raw data but I haven't found any problems yet.
I would appreciate any interested Slashdotters to set me straight or confirm my work.
Here's my blog article with all the calculations on it: http://blog.bit-matrix.com/2009/01/20/how-green-is-your-code/ [bit-matrix.com]

Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505240</id>
	<title>Unfair Comparison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261335420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is also an unfair comparison. what are you considering a PHP page. A page mostly of HTML and a few PHP tags? C++ has to render all of the HTML so how would you compare that? I have worked on programs that where 100\% coded in PHP, and HTML was created by either echo or print statements, these are nightmares to maintain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is also an unfair comparison .
what are you considering a PHP page .
A page mostly of HTML and a few PHP tags ?
C + + has to render all of the HTML so how would you compare that ?
I have worked on programs that where 100 \ % coded in PHP , and HTML was created by either echo or print statements , these are nightmares to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is also an unfair comparison.
what are you considering a PHP page.
A page mostly of HTML and a few PHP tags?
C++ has to render all of the HTML so how would you compare that?
I have worked on programs that where 100\% coded in PHP, and HTML was created by either echo or print statements, these are nightmares to maintain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504376</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1261329060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?"<br> <br>

Should be about equal to the environment impact of maintaining the PHP language itself; in fact, it is likely to be less than that, since there would be no need to maintain the actual interpreter, but only duplicate some functionality.  This is really a one-off, and the libraries could be reused by thousands of enterprises.<br> <br>

Bugs and security breaches do not cause any more CO2 emission than bug-free code, so I do not really see your point in bringing them up.  The other differences in development are pretty minor, since PHP derives its programming model from C.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C + + ?
" Should be about equal to the environment impact of maintaining the PHP language itself ; in fact , it is likely to be less than that , since there would be no need to maintain the actual interpreter , but only duplicate some functionality .
This is really a one-off , and the libraries could be reused by thousands of enterprises .
Bugs and security breaches do not cause any more CO2 emission than bug-free code , so I do not really see your point in bringing them up .
The other differences in development are pretty minor , since PHP derives its programming model from C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?
" 

Should be about equal to the environment impact of maintaining the PHP language itself; in fact, it is likely to be less than that, since there would be no need to maintain the actual interpreter, but only duplicate some functionality.
This is really a one-off, and the libraries could be reused by thousands of enterprises.
Bugs and security breaches do not cause any more CO2 emission than bug-free code, so I do not really see your point in bringing them up.
The other differences in development are pretty minor, since PHP derives its programming model from C.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506552</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1261303140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>one of the things you don't generally see with PHP code is a buffer overflow, where you try to copy a bunch of strings and concatenate them together and you run out of room and don't notice it and you go clobbering memory. That's because the string manipulation code goes through a bunch of checks when you're appending strings.</p></div><p>And this is one of the great ironies of PHP... while there *have* been a number of vulnerabilities in PHP-based applications, that's more an artifact of the unqualified developers that the language's ease-of-use tends to attract.</p><p>PHP offers quite an impressive number of security-related features that make horrible, difficult-to-solve security problems almost a non-issue. PP example of string appending is but one of far too many to name, yet it's one that's the cause of the vast majority of security issues in software, everywhere!</p><p>What's that, you say? <b>The #1 cause of security issues has been all-but-eliminated in a programming language that's often chided for security issues?</b> Doesn't really make sense, does it?</p><p>And then, on to what is perhaps the #1 cause of security issues for database-driven product - the dreaded SQL injection error. Yep, <a href="http://php.net/manual/en/pdo.prepared-statements.php" title="php.net">that one has been solved too!</a> [php.net]</p><p>Yes, you can use PHP to write an insecure application. But you can use an SUV with seat belts and airbags to kill yourself, too. When discussing security, PHP doesn't get anywhere near the respect it otherwise deserves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>one of the things you do n't generally see with PHP code is a buffer overflow , where you try to copy a bunch of strings and concatenate them together and you run out of room and do n't notice it and you go clobbering memory .
That 's because the string manipulation code goes through a bunch of checks when you 're appending strings.And this is one of the great ironies of PHP... while there * have * been a number of vulnerabilities in PHP-based applications , that 's more an artifact of the unqualified developers that the language 's ease-of-use tends to attract.PHP offers quite an impressive number of security-related features that make horrible , difficult-to-solve security problems almost a non-issue .
PP example of string appending is but one of far too many to name , yet it 's one that 's the cause of the vast majority of security issues in software , everywhere ! What 's that , you say ?
The # 1 cause of security issues has been all-but-eliminated in a programming language that 's often chided for security issues ?
Does n't really make sense , does it ? And then , on to what is perhaps the # 1 cause of security issues for database-driven product - the dreaded SQL injection error .
Yep , that one has been solved too !
[ php.net ] Yes , you can use PHP to write an insecure application .
But you can use an SUV with seat belts and airbags to kill yourself , too .
When discussing security , PHP does n't get anywhere near the respect it otherwise deserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one of the things you don't generally see with PHP code is a buffer overflow, where you try to copy a bunch of strings and concatenate them together and you run out of room and don't notice it and you go clobbering memory.
That's because the string manipulation code goes through a bunch of checks when you're appending strings.And this is one of the great ironies of PHP... while there *have* been a number of vulnerabilities in PHP-based applications, that's more an artifact of the unqualified developers that the language's ease-of-use tends to attract.PHP offers quite an impressive number of security-related features that make horrible, difficult-to-solve security problems almost a non-issue.
PP example of string appending is but one of far too many to name, yet it's one that's the cause of the vast majority of security issues in software, everywhere!What's that, you say?
The #1 cause of security issues has been all-but-eliminated in a programming language that's often chided for security issues?
Doesn't really make sense, does it?And then, on to what is perhaps the #1 cause of security issues for database-driven product - the dreaded SQL injection error.
Yep, that one has been solved too!
[php.net]Yes, you can use PHP to write an insecure application.
But you can use an SUV with seat belts and airbags to kill yourself, too.
When discussing security, PHP doesn't get anywhere near the respect it otherwise deserves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504292</id>
	<title>First post from TFA nails it</title>
	<author>hilather</author>
	<datestamp>1261328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read the first posters points (in TFA) he pretty much sums everything up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read the first posters points ( in TFA ) he pretty much sums everything up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read the first posters points (in TFA) he pretty much sums everything up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504782</id>
	<title>Assumptions</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1261332000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, <em> <strong>let's assume</strong> </em> this to be 25,000 of the 30,000. If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down (<em> <strong>assuming</strong> </em> a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code)</p></div><p>In order to keep math simple, let's assume a horse is a perfect sphere...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As they only say that 'the bulk ' is running PHP , let 's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000 .
If C + + would have been used instead of PHP , then 22,500 servers could be powered down ( assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C + + versus PHP code ) In order to keep math simple , let 's assume a horse is a perfect sphere.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP,  let's assume  this to be 25,000 of the 30,000.
If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down ( assuming  a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code)In order to keep math simple, let's assume a horse is a perfect sphere...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504648</id>
	<title>Re:it's stoopid because</title>
	<author>Cougar Town</author>
	<datestamp>1261330980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And water isn't a poison, but you'll still die if you drink too much of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And water is n't a poison , but you 'll still die if you drink too much of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And water isn't a poison, but you'll still die if you drink too much of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30512580</id>
	<title>A reduction of CO2, or an increase?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The premise of high-level scripting languages is they save programmers' time, and that programmers' time is worth more than computers' time.  Let's ass/u/me it's true (yes, I know some people will disagree that high-level languages really save programming time).</p><p>If you're going to talk about how much would be saved by switching to a lower-level language, then you should also talk about what it would cost, i.e. how many people would still be working on those applications and their pay rates and other expenses.</p><p>And if you going to measure CO2 cost of PHP, then don't forget to measure the C++ developers' workstations' impact, compiling several times per day to develop an application whose PHP equivalent is already running. And do these developers commute?  Are the lights on in their offices?  Should you measure their entire carbon footprint during the increased development period? (Probably not, but <em>some</em> of it would surely apply.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The premise of high-level scripting languages is they save programmers ' time , and that programmers ' time is worth more than computers ' time .
Let 's ass/u/me it 's true ( yes , I know some people will disagree that high-level languages really save programming time ) .If you 're going to talk about how much would be saved by switching to a lower-level language , then you should also talk about what it would cost , i.e .
how many people would still be working on those applications and their pay rates and other expenses.And if you going to measure CO2 cost of PHP , then do n't forget to measure the C + + developers ' workstations ' impact , compiling several times per day to develop an application whose PHP equivalent is already running .
And do these developers commute ?
Are the lights on in their offices ?
Should you measure their entire carbon footprint during the increased development period ?
( Probably not , but some of it would surely apply .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premise of high-level scripting languages is they save programmers' time, and that programmers' time is worth more than computers' time.
Let's ass/u/me it's true (yes, I know some people will disagree that high-level languages really save programming time).If you're going to talk about how much would be saved by switching to a lower-level language, then you should also talk about what it would cost, i.e.
how many people would still be working on those applications and their pay rates and other expenses.And if you going to measure CO2 cost of PHP, then don't forget to measure the C++ developers' workstations' impact, compiling several times per day to develop an application whose PHP equivalent is already running.
And do these developers commute?
Are the lights on in their offices?
Should you measure their entire carbon footprint during the increased development period?
(Probably not, but some of it would surely apply.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505288</id>
	<title>The dog ate my computer</title>
	<author>wytcld</author>
	<datestamp>1261335840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is as stupid as the "news" a month back claiming a pet dog used the same environmental resources as a large SUV. The problem was, multiplying the claims for agricultural land used to feed one dog by the number of dogs gave as a result that 10\% of our agriculture is feeding dogs. Why is that obviously wrong? Because the whole pet food industry accounts for less that 1/10 of 1\% of the value of agricultural production.</p><p>We're going to see more and more of this shit. Everyone will be competing to get their 15 minutes of fame by claiming that X - something that annoys them, like PHP or, evidently, dogs - is the major overlooked factor in destroying the Earth's climate. Because they know our press is so stupid in basic scientific literacy that they'll jump at the chance to put a headline over the claim, since we're all bound to read it just in case there's a there there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is as stupid as the " news " a month back claiming a pet dog used the same environmental resources as a large SUV .
The problem was , multiplying the claims for agricultural land used to feed one dog by the number of dogs gave as a result that 10 \ % of our agriculture is feeding dogs .
Why is that obviously wrong ?
Because the whole pet food industry accounts for less that 1/10 of 1 \ % of the value of agricultural production.We 're going to see more and more of this shit .
Everyone will be competing to get their 15 minutes of fame by claiming that X - something that annoys them , like PHP or , evidently , dogs - is the major overlooked factor in destroying the Earth 's climate .
Because they know our press is so stupid in basic scientific literacy that they 'll jump at the chance to put a headline over the claim , since we 're all bound to read it just in case there 's a there there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is as stupid as the "news" a month back claiming a pet dog used the same environmental resources as a large SUV.
The problem was, multiplying the claims for agricultural land used to feed one dog by the number of dogs gave as a result that 10\% of our agriculture is feeding dogs.
Why is that obviously wrong?
Because the whole pet food industry accounts for less that 1/10 of 1\% of the value of agricultural production.We're going to see more and more of this shit.
Everyone will be competing to get their 15 minutes of fame by claiming that X - something that annoys them, like PHP or, evidently, dogs - is the major overlooked factor in destroying the Earth's climate.
Because they know our press is so stupid in basic scientific literacy that they'll jump at the chance to put a headline over the claim, since we're all bound to read it just in case there's a there there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506844</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1261306080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you don't take the compile time away, just like you don't take the time it takes the developer to copy the files to the webserver or set the php config options.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you do n't take the compile time away , just like you do n't take the time it takes the developer to copy the files to the webserver or set the php config options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you don't take the compile time away, just like you don't take the time it takes the developer to copy the files to the webserver or set the php config options.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505080</id>
	<title>Wt is good, but not for this kind of task</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd actually say that Wt can be a more productive framework than resorting to writing individual pages in classic PHP. I'm not sure that I'd use it for general purpose work, however.<br>While I agree that C++ is a much better programming language (no implicit declaration, decent type checking, access to good general purpose class libraries, a clear understanding of what is actually happening underneath, and the Standard Template Library - a collection of code that rivals the most beautiful hills of Scotland in implementation).<br>However, I'd not want to run native libraries/executables on a production web server. I can only imaging the security nightmare, and the potential for core dumping of web server processes, although with apache, the parent should re-spawn the workers... Also I'd have to write at least some fairly significant classes myself to replace functionality that is standard in the PHP libraries.<br>The big issue for any web application that I have ever written, has been performance of the database queries, not the frontend code. If you want to reduce the number of servers, developer effort would be best spent hiring people to look at caching, query optimisation, and load distribution; not re-writing the front end in C++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd actually say that Wt can be a more productive framework than resorting to writing individual pages in classic PHP .
I 'm not sure that I 'd use it for general purpose work , however.While I agree that C + + is a much better programming language ( no implicit declaration , decent type checking , access to good general purpose class libraries , a clear understanding of what is actually happening underneath , and the Standard Template Library - a collection of code that rivals the most beautiful hills of Scotland in implementation ) .However , I 'd not want to run native libraries/executables on a production web server .
I can only imaging the security nightmare , and the potential for core dumping of web server processes , although with apache , the parent should re-spawn the workers... Also I 'd have to write at least some fairly significant classes myself to replace functionality that is standard in the PHP libraries.The big issue for any web application that I have ever written , has been performance of the database queries , not the frontend code .
If you want to reduce the number of servers , developer effort would be best spent hiring people to look at caching , query optimisation , and load distribution ; not re-writing the front end in C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd actually say that Wt can be a more productive framework than resorting to writing individual pages in classic PHP.
I'm not sure that I'd use it for general purpose work, however.While I agree that C++ is a much better programming language (no implicit declaration, decent type checking, access to good general purpose class libraries, a clear understanding of what is actually happening underneath, and the Standard Template Library - a collection of code that rivals the most beautiful hills of Scotland in implementation).However, I'd not want to run native libraries/executables on a production web server.
I can only imaging the security nightmare, and the potential for core dumping of web server processes, although with apache, the parent should re-spawn the workers... Also I'd have to write at least some fairly significant classes myself to replace functionality that is standard in the PHP libraries.The big issue for any web application that I have ever written, has been performance of the database queries, not the frontend code.
If you want to reduce the number of servers, developer effort would be best spent hiring people to look at caching, query optimisation, and load distribution; not re-writing the front end in C++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30526802</id>
	<title>Rabid Green Monster</title>
	<author>manlygeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261511640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow,
Gratz to the submitter of this article.  This is one of the most rabid and foolish examples of "going green" I've seen.  PHP is certainly not the most efficient language in terms of run time resources.  But you have to count the resources required to develop and maintain C++ code with all its pointer foulups and memory leaks versus PHP which is relatively simple and straightforward to develop and runs in a very stable manner on either a  LAMP or WAMP stack.  Sure servers eat up a lot of energy.  But so do programmer armies who have to commute or log in or fill out timesheets by the forest, all to chase memory leaks, buffer overflows and the like.  Oh yeah, and lets not forget the number of EXTRA servers you're going to have to put online to make up for the ones that need rebooted every few hours because some high school script kiddie doesn't bother to sufficiently check for memory leaks that chew through the server like a teen athelete on steroids.  Maintainability is a HUGE factor in overall cost in terms of both $$$ and other resources.  Use C++ or Assembler or whatever low level, low resource hogging language on a FEW critical sections, written by l337 coders, and let the pock faced script kiddie army churn out the mountains of PHP,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net, JavaScript, etc that is at least garbage collected in their own VMs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , Gratz to the submitter of this article .
This is one of the most rabid and foolish examples of " going green " I 've seen .
PHP is certainly not the most efficient language in terms of run time resources .
But you have to count the resources required to develop and maintain C + + code with all its pointer foulups and memory leaks versus PHP which is relatively simple and straightforward to develop and runs in a very stable manner on either a LAMP or WAMP stack .
Sure servers eat up a lot of energy .
But so do programmer armies who have to commute or log in or fill out timesheets by the forest , all to chase memory leaks , buffer overflows and the like .
Oh yeah , and lets not forget the number of EXTRA servers you 're going to have to put online to make up for the ones that need rebooted every few hours because some high school script kiddie does n't bother to sufficiently check for memory leaks that chew through the server like a teen athelete on steroids .
Maintainability is a HUGE factor in overall cost in terms of both $ $ $ and other resources .
Use C + + or Assembler or whatever low level , low resource hogging language on a FEW critical sections , written by l337 coders , and let the pock faced script kiddie army churn out the mountains of PHP , .Net , JavaScript , etc that is at least garbage collected in their own VMs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow,
Gratz to the submitter of this article.
This is one of the most rabid and foolish examples of "going green" I've seen.
PHP is certainly not the most efficient language in terms of run time resources.
But you have to count the resources required to develop and maintain C++ code with all its pointer foulups and memory leaks versus PHP which is relatively simple and straightforward to develop and runs in a very stable manner on either a  LAMP or WAMP stack.
Sure servers eat up a lot of energy.
But so do programmer armies who have to commute or log in or fill out timesheets by the forest, all to chase memory leaks, buffer overflows and the like.
Oh yeah, and lets not forget the number of EXTRA servers you're going to have to put online to make up for the ones that need rebooted every few hours because some high school script kiddie doesn't bother to sufficiently check for memory leaks that chew through the server like a teen athelete on steroids.
Maintainability is a HUGE factor in overall cost in terms of both $$$ and other resources.
Use C++ or Assembler or whatever low level, low resource hogging language on a FEW critical sections, written by l337 coders, and let the pock faced script kiddie army churn out the mountains of PHP, .Net, JavaScript, etc that is at least garbage collected in their own VMs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505206</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the agony . . .</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1261335240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First: where did these numbers come from? I find it hard to believe them, as I have seen actual benchmarks of PHP, not just WAG of "10 times as slow as C++".</p></div></blockquote><p>My bad; I can't seem to see TFA right now, but judging from other comments, the author actually did use the <a href="http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/" title="debian.org">language shootout</a> [debian.org] benchmarks.  My other points still stand, however, as well as points made by others: how much of Facebook's web serving is CPU (in PHP) bound?  Did the author take into account the possibility that with caching, PHP wouldn't be nearly so slow?</p><p>In my (admittedly limited) experience as a (mostly) maintenance programmer, the absolute number one priority in writing software should be to write maintainable code, for two reasons: 1) it <b>will</b> have to be maintained, and 2) technology (not just hardware) will improve such that "efficient code" that is unreadable will ultimately become just unreadable; simple, straightforward, maintainable code will be optimized by the interpreter or compiler to be as efficient if not more efficient than the "efficient code".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First : where did these numbers come from ?
I find it hard to believe them , as I have seen actual benchmarks of PHP , not just WAG of " 10 times as slow as C + + " .My bad ; I ca n't seem to see TFA right now , but judging from other comments , the author actually did use the language shootout [ debian.org ] benchmarks .
My other points still stand , however , as well as points made by others : how much of Facebook 's web serving is CPU ( in PHP ) bound ?
Did the author take into account the possibility that with caching , PHP would n't be nearly so slow ? In my ( admittedly limited ) experience as a ( mostly ) maintenance programmer , the absolute number one priority in writing software should be to write maintainable code , for two reasons : 1 ) it will have to be maintained , and 2 ) technology ( not just hardware ) will improve such that " efficient code " that is unreadable will ultimately become just unreadable ; simple , straightforward , maintainable code will be optimized by the interpreter or compiler to be as efficient if not more efficient than the " efficient code " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First: where did these numbers come from?
I find it hard to believe them, as I have seen actual benchmarks of PHP, not just WAG of "10 times as slow as C++".My bad; I can't seem to see TFA right now, but judging from other comments, the author actually did use the language shootout [debian.org] benchmarks.
My other points still stand, however, as well as points made by others: how much of Facebook's web serving is CPU (in PHP) bound?
Did the author take into account the possibility that with caching, PHP wouldn't be nearly so slow?In my (admittedly limited) experience as a (mostly) maintenance programmer, the absolute number one priority in writing software should be to write maintainable code, for two reasons: 1) it will have to be maintained, and 2) technology (not just hardware) will improve such that "efficient code" that is unreadable will ultimately become just unreadable; simple, straightforward, maintainable code will be optimized by the interpreter or compiler to be as efficient if not more efficient than the "efficient code".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30511626</id>
	<title>Speed of interpretation isn't the only bottleneck</title>
	<author>WoodstockJeff</author>
	<datestamp>1261408380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing the speed of PHP (or Perl, or Ruby, or ???) to a compiled application in a site like Facebook is an invalid comparison; so much of what needs to get done involves outside processes. Pesky little things like exchanging data with an SQL server.</p><p>Years ago, I wrote a highly-optimized C program to interpret input data and save it to a database. C was used because the interpretation involved a lot of bit-based (rather than byte-based) manipulation. It was very fast. But, a couple of years ago, I needed a one-time modified version of it for a project, so I developed the temporary program in PHP instead, since the changes to the C program would take longer than I wanted to dedicate to the process.</p><p>Surprisingly, the bit-wise manipulation in PHP, while significantly slower than that of the C program, was not a significant factor in how fast the conversion ran. What should have been a 100-200\% increase in run time was less than 5\%, due to the overhead of the database inserts. For a program that runs once or twice per day, the added overhead was inconsequential, so the next revision of that program was in PHP.</p><p>Could Facebook shut down thousands of servers if all their code was converted from PHP to C++? Doubtful. Maybe a hundred or so, but not tens of thousands, as claimed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing the speed of PHP ( or Perl , or Ruby , or ? ? ?
) to a compiled application in a site like Facebook is an invalid comparison ; so much of what needs to get done involves outside processes .
Pesky little things like exchanging data with an SQL server.Years ago , I wrote a highly-optimized C program to interpret input data and save it to a database .
C was used because the interpretation involved a lot of bit-based ( rather than byte-based ) manipulation .
It was very fast .
But , a couple of years ago , I needed a one-time modified version of it for a project , so I developed the temporary program in PHP instead , since the changes to the C program would take longer than I wanted to dedicate to the process.Surprisingly , the bit-wise manipulation in PHP , while significantly slower than that of the C program , was not a significant factor in how fast the conversion ran .
What should have been a 100-200 \ % increase in run time was less than 5 \ % , due to the overhead of the database inserts .
For a program that runs once or twice per day , the added overhead was inconsequential , so the next revision of that program was in PHP.Could Facebook shut down thousands of servers if all their code was converted from PHP to C + + ?
Doubtful. Maybe a hundred or so , but not tens of thousands , as claimed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing the speed of PHP (or Perl, or Ruby, or ???
) to a compiled application in a site like Facebook is an invalid comparison; so much of what needs to get done involves outside processes.
Pesky little things like exchanging data with an SQL server.Years ago, I wrote a highly-optimized C program to interpret input data and save it to a database.
C was used because the interpretation involved a lot of bit-based (rather than byte-based) manipulation.
It was very fast.
But, a couple of years ago, I needed a one-time modified version of it for a project, so I developed the temporary program in PHP instead, since the changes to the C program would take longer than I wanted to dedicate to the process.Surprisingly, the bit-wise manipulation in PHP, while significantly slower than that of the C program, was not a significant factor in how fast the conversion ran.
What should have been a 100-200\% increase in run time was less than 5\%, due to the overhead of the database inserts.
For a program that runs once or twice per day, the added overhead was inconsequential, so the next revision of that program was in PHP.Could Facebook shut down thousands of servers if all their code was converted from PHP to C++?
Doubtful. Maybe a hundred or so, but not tens of thousands, as claimed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504486</id>
	<title>Hells about to freeze over ...</title>
	<author>LizardKing</author>
	<datestamp>1261329840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.. because I didn't ever think I'd be defending PHP.</p><p>However, it is a much better choice for a web application than C or C++ - and I say that as someone who codes C, C++ and Java for a living. There are no decent web frameworks for C++, memory management is still an issue despite the STL, and the complexity of the language means both staff costs and development time are inflated. Peer review is harder, as the language is fundamentally more difficult to master than PHP. Compared to Java, the development tools are poorer, and things like unit testing a more complicated despite the availability of things like Cppunit. There's no "standard" libraries for things like database access, and no literature that I am aware of that describes how you would go about designing a framework for C++. You'd most likely end up porting something like Spring to C++, and the even if you published your code on the web, I doubt much of a community would build up around it.</p><p>If you want a less contentious argument, and one which can be backed up with hard evidence, then argue PHP that should be replaced with Java. A well written Java web application, using a lightweight framework such as Spring or PicoContainer, should outperform ad-hoc C++ code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.. because I did n't ever think I 'd be defending PHP.However , it is a much better choice for a web application than C or C + + - and I say that as someone who codes C , C + + and Java for a living .
There are no decent web frameworks for C + + , memory management is still an issue despite the STL , and the complexity of the language means both staff costs and development time are inflated .
Peer review is harder , as the language is fundamentally more difficult to master than PHP .
Compared to Java , the development tools are poorer , and things like unit testing a more complicated despite the availability of things like Cppunit .
There 's no " standard " libraries for things like database access , and no literature that I am aware of that describes how you would go about designing a framework for C + + .
You 'd most likely end up porting something like Spring to C + + , and the even if you published your code on the web , I doubt much of a community would build up around it.If you want a less contentious argument , and one which can be backed up with hard evidence , then argue PHP that should be replaced with Java .
A well written Java web application , using a lightweight framework such as Spring or PicoContainer , should outperform ad-hoc C + + code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.. because I didn't ever think I'd be defending PHP.However, it is a much better choice for a web application than C or C++ - and I say that as someone who codes C, C++ and Java for a living.
There are no decent web frameworks for C++, memory management is still an issue despite the STL, and the complexity of the language means both staff costs and development time are inflated.
Peer review is harder, as the language is fundamentally more difficult to master than PHP.
Compared to Java, the development tools are poorer, and things like unit testing a more complicated despite the availability of things like Cppunit.
There's no "standard" libraries for things like database access, and no literature that I am aware of that describes how you would go about designing a framework for C++.
You'd most likely end up porting something like Spring to C++, and the even if you published your code on the web, I doubt much of a community would build up around it.If you want a less contentious argument, and one which can be backed up with hard evidence, then argue PHP that should be replaced with Java.
A well written Java web application, using a lightweight framework such as Spring or PicoContainer, should outperform ad-hoc C++ code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508596</id>
	<title>Re:PHP harder to test than C++</title>
	<author>Nicolay77</author>
	<datestamp>1261325160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't say I do agree with you, but I don't disagree either. I think that this is one of the premises that only time can tell.</p><p>There's a C++ Web framework to test your premise with a high profile web project:</p><p><a href="http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt" title="webtoolkit.eu">http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt</a> [webtoolkit.eu]</p><p>I really hope somebody uses it for something facebook-big and we hear about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't say I do agree with you , but I do n't disagree either .
I think that this is one of the premises that only time can tell.There 's a C + + Web framework to test your premise with a high profile web project : http : //www.webtoolkit.eu/wt [ webtoolkit.eu ] I really hope somebody uses it for something facebook-big and we hear about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't say I do agree with you, but I don't disagree either.
I think that this is one of the premises that only time can tell.There's a C++ Web framework to test your premise with a high profile web project:http://www.webtoolkit.eu/wt [webtoolkit.eu]I really hope somebody uses it for something facebook-big and we hear about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505196</id>
	<title>Wasted Energy</title>
	<author>ChaoticCoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1261335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Isn't this "study" a waste of energy?
</p><p>
I am a C/C++ programmer by trade; I'm not fond of PHP. Yet this "C++ saves energy over PHP" argument smells like more selfish politics to me. And selfish politics is what is bringing doom down on humanity's head -- the use of PHP vs. C++ is a sideline, a distraction, and only truly valuable for people who have a philosophical axe to grind.
</p><p>
You want to save a lot of energy? Shut down all the computers running MMOs. And stop wasting cycles looking for alien signals in cosmic radio waves. And get rid of banal YouTube videos... and... the list is endless. The science behind Global Warming is being used to further political and social agendas that have little or nothing to do with adapting our species from a potential environment change.
</p><p>
In the end, selfish politics will kill us all. We will become a footnote in history is we do not discover enlightened self-interest.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this " study " a waste of energy ?
I am a C/C + + programmer by trade ; I 'm not fond of PHP .
Yet this " C + + saves energy over PHP " argument smells like more selfish politics to me .
And selfish politics is what is bringing doom down on humanity 's head -- the use of PHP vs. C + + is a sideline , a distraction , and only truly valuable for people who have a philosophical axe to grind .
You want to save a lot of energy ?
Shut down all the computers running MMOs .
And stop wasting cycles looking for alien signals in cosmic radio waves .
And get rid of banal YouTube videos... and... the list is endless .
The science behind Global Warming is being used to further political and social agendas that have little or nothing to do with adapting our species from a potential environment change .
In the end , selfish politics will kill us all .
We will become a footnote in history is we do not discover enlightened self-interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Isn't this "study" a waste of energy?
I am a C/C++ programmer by trade; I'm not fond of PHP.
Yet this "C++ saves energy over PHP" argument smells like more selfish politics to me.
And selfish politics is what is bringing doom down on humanity's head -- the use of PHP vs. C++ is a sideline, a distraction, and only truly valuable for people who have a philosophical axe to grind.
You want to save a lot of energy?
Shut down all the computers running MMOs.
And stop wasting cycles looking for alien signals in cosmic radio waves.
And get rid of banal YouTube videos... and... the list is endless.
The science behind Global Warming is being used to further political and social agendas that have little or nothing to do with adapting our species from a potential environment change.
In the end, selfish politics will kill us all.
We will become a footnote in history is we do not discover enlightened self-interest.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504554</id>
	<title>eh</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1261330320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as with ALL things invented by humans and which can be used to create other stuff, php has grown over the 'homepage tools' it was initially created to be. now not only it has a huge set of functions inside it to create full fledged applications, but through server modules it can also acquire an immense sea of functionality that can be used to perform innumerable other tasks. it is pretty much at the point where it can take over some desktop applications too, with the right server setup and modules - with some scripts and the proper modules you can even do a fair amount word processing in any web front app. to the extent of being able to do drag&amp;drop editing/drawing and pdf creation and so on. of course not quite as efficient as a native desktop program, however, regardless, you can.</p><p>just check php functions in php.net, and check some modules apache can use to supplement php. there is QUITE a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as with ALL things invented by humans and which can be used to create other stuff , php has grown over the 'homepage tools ' it was initially created to be .
now not only it has a huge set of functions inside it to create full fledged applications , but through server modules it can also acquire an immense sea of functionality that can be used to perform innumerable other tasks .
it is pretty much at the point where it can take over some desktop applications too , with the right server setup and modules - with some scripts and the proper modules you can even do a fair amount word processing in any web front app .
to the extent of being able to do drag&amp;drop editing/drawing and pdf creation and so on .
of course not quite as efficient as a native desktop program , however , regardless , you can.just check php functions in php.net , and check some modules apache can use to supplement php .
there is QUITE a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as with ALL things invented by humans and which can be used to create other stuff, php has grown over the 'homepage tools' it was initially created to be.
now not only it has a huge set of functions inside it to create full fledged applications, but through server modules it can also acquire an immense sea of functionality that can be used to perform innumerable other tasks.
it is pretty much at the point where it can take over some desktop applications too, with the right server setup and modules - with some scripts and the proper modules you can even do a fair amount word processing in any web front app.
to the extent of being able to do drag&amp;drop editing/drawing and pdf creation and so on.
of course not quite as efficient as a native desktop program, however, regardless, you can.just check php functions in php.net, and check some modules apache can use to supplement php.
there is QUITE a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505202</id>
	<title>10 to 1 is nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261335180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10 to 1?  Nonsense!!  If they had used C++, they'd be no Facebook<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yet, for zero carbon footprint.   Extremely efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10 to 1 ?
Nonsense ! ! If they had used C + + , they 'd be no Facebook ... yet , for zero carbon footprint .
Extremely efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10 to 1?
Nonsense!!  If they had used C++, they'd be no Facebook ... yet, for zero carbon footprint.
Extremely efficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505408</id>
	<title>C is faster than PHP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C is certainly faster than PHP (I have written programs in both), but I don't think it is too great of problem in this way. If you want to make your PHP code take up less energy then possibly you can run an optimizer on it and store the optimiezd code. This would speed it up a bit (although it doesn't seem to help much).</p><p>I have written two programs, an assembler in C, and a program to copy the assembler's output to the hard drive image using PHP. The C program runs nearly instantly, while the PHP program, even though it is much simpler and just calls a C function to do the direct copy anyways, takes 1 second to run.</p><p>And, of course, like mentioned, you do need water and heat and stuff to live, and the major cause of global warming is the sun. And global warming is not as serious as many people says, but nevertheless, if you want to help by being more environmentally friendly you can please do so (as long as it is not a mistake).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C is certainly faster than PHP ( I have written programs in both ) , but I do n't think it is too great of problem in this way .
If you want to make your PHP code take up less energy then possibly you can run an optimizer on it and store the optimiezd code .
This would speed it up a bit ( although it does n't seem to help much ) .I have written two programs , an assembler in C , and a program to copy the assembler 's output to the hard drive image using PHP .
The C program runs nearly instantly , while the PHP program , even though it is much simpler and just calls a C function to do the direct copy anyways , takes 1 second to run.And , of course , like mentioned , you do need water and heat and stuff to live , and the major cause of global warming is the sun .
And global warming is not as serious as many people says , but nevertheless , if you want to help by being more environmentally friendly you can please do so ( as long as it is not a mistake ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C is certainly faster than PHP (I have written programs in both), but I don't think it is too great of problem in this way.
If you want to make your PHP code take up less energy then possibly you can run an optimizer on it and store the optimiezd code.
This would speed it up a bit (although it doesn't seem to help much).I have written two programs, an assembler in C, and a program to copy the assembler's output to the hard drive image using PHP.
The C program runs nearly instantly, while the PHP program, even though it is much simpler and just calls a C function to do the direct copy anyways, takes 1 second to run.And, of course, like mentioned, you do need water and heat and stuff to live, and the major cause of global warming is the sun.
And global warming is not as serious as many people says, but nevertheless, if you want to help by being more environmentally friendly you can please do so (as long as it is not a mistake).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504990</id>
	<title>Couldn't they just turn off all of those servers?</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1261333560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all, what purpose do they really serve? Apart from fans of X Factor would anyone really notice if it was gone? <br>At the very least it would save us all from the annual slashdot Christmas bunfight over which code reigns supreme.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , what purpose do they really serve ?
Apart from fans of X Factor would anyone really notice if it was gone ?
At the very least it would save us all from the annual slashdot Christmas bunfight over which code reigns supreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, what purpose do they really serve?
Apart from fans of X Factor would anyone really notice if it was gone?
At the very least it would save us all from the annual slashdot Christmas bunfight over which code reigns supreme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506504</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... no.</title>
	<author>SUB7IME</author>
	<datestamp>1261302660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the correct response. Facebook use (and actively develop) APC, an opcode cache. In other words, they cache the compiled binaries created by PHP. So, the environmental impact of running PHP as opposed to something compiled is virtually 0, because nearly all calls are made to pre-compiled PHP opcode.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the correct response .
Facebook use ( and actively develop ) APC , an opcode cache .
In other words , they cache the compiled binaries created by PHP .
So , the environmental impact of running PHP as opposed to something compiled is virtually 0 , because nearly all calls are made to pre-compiled PHP opcode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the correct response.
Facebook use (and actively develop) APC, an opcode cache.
In other words, they cache the compiled binaries created by PHP.
So, the environmental impact of running PHP as opposed to something compiled is virtually 0, because nearly all calls are made to pre-compiled PHP opcode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506686</id>
	<title>even hippies of epSos.de compile PHP scripts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261304400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The holy PHP scripts are compiled and cached after the first run on a good server system. Then they are preached down to the spiritual RAM sanctuary and run through the CPU to make sure it has got the secret idea about the digital space Jesus.</p><p>The difference in efficiency results from the quality of the compiler. Which can be fixed by improving it.</p><p>Anyway, C++ could never replace PHP on the web, because it is not designed for the web.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The holy PHP scripts are compiled and cached after the first run on a good server system .
Then they are preached down to the spiritual RAM sanctuary and run through the CPU to make sure it has got the secret idea about the digital space Jesus.The difference in efficiency results from the quality of the compiler .
Which can be fixed by improving it.Anyway , C + + could never replace PHP on the web , because it is not designed for the web .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The holy PHP scripts are compiled and cached after the first run on a good server system.
Then they are preached down to the spiritual RAM sanctuary and run through the CPU to make sure it has got the secret idea about the digital space Jesus.The difference in efficiency results from the quality of the compiler.
Which can be fixed by improving it.Anyway, C++ could never replace PHP on the web, because it is not designed for the web.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504588</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?</p></div><p>100 guys programming in C++ on their desktops is nothing compared to 30000 servers. So that doesn't make a lot of difference.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C + + ? 100 guys programming in C + + on their desktops is nothing compared to 30000 servers .
So that does n't make a lot of difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?100 guys programming in C++ on their desktops is nothing compared to 30000 servers.
So that doesn't make a lot of difference.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509278</id>
	<title>Pike?</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1261333260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Out of curiosity, does anybody use <a href="http://pike.ida.liu.se/" title="ida.liu.se">Pike</a> [ida.liu.se], at least outside of Scandinavia and Germany? I've only written toy programs in it, but it seems quite nice and to be pretty efficient. It's C-like, but with many of the nice features of dynamic languages. (Okay, I admit it, what I <b>really</b> like is that it allows binary literals.)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity , does anybody use Pike [ ida.liu.se ] , at least outside of Scandinavia and Germany ?
I 've only written toy programs in it , but it seems quite nice and to be pretty efficient .
It 's C-like , but with many of the nice features of dynamic languages .
( Okay , I admit it , what I really like is that it allows binary literals .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Out of curiosity, does anybody use Pike [ida.liu.se], at least outside of Scandinavia and Germany?
I've only written toy programs in it, but it seems quite nice and to be pretty efficient.
It's C-like, but with many of the nice features of dynamic languages.
(Okay, I admit it, what I really like is that it allows binary literals.
)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505044</id>
	<title>Time for Congress to legislate language efficiency</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1261334100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is brilliant! I think it's clear now the direction we must go. Overuse of energy-guzzling languages like PHP have put us on an unsustainable trajectory fueling out of control global warming.</p><p>Congress must act to regulate the use of these energy-guzzling languages. No longer will programmers and corporations be permitted to turn out inefficient code with impunity.</p><p>PHP, Perl, Ruby, Bash, your days are numbered!</p><p>Just wait until we can get UN involved. Python, you and your CO2 spewing simplicity are next!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is brilliant !
I think it 's clear now the direction we must go .
Overuse of energy-guzzling languages like PHP have put us on an unsustainable trajectory fueling out of control global warming.Congress must act to regulate the use of these energy-guzzling languages .
No longer will programmers and corporations be permitted to turn out inefficient code with impunity.PHP , Perl , Ruby , Bash , your days are numbered ! Just wait until we can get UN involved .
Python , you and your CO2 spewing simplicity are next !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is brilliant!
I think it's clear now the direction we must go.
Overuse of energy-guzzling languages like PHP have put us on an unsustainable trajectory fueling out of control global warming.Congress must act to regulate the use of these energy-guzzling languages.
No longer will programmers and corporations be permitted to turn out inefficient code with impunity.PHP, Perl, Ruby, Bash, your days are numbered!Just wait until we can get UN involved.
Python, you and your CO2 spewing simplicity are next!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507212</id>
	<title>Soulskill is the new kdawson y/n?</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1261308720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this garbage even getting posted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this garbage even getting posted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this garbage even getting posted?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505312</id>
	<title>APC is heavily used by FB</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed a ton of the APC features are built by the facebook folks.

<p>
Here's one of their 2008 presentations on the topic - <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/shire/php-tek-2008-apc-facebook?src=embed" title="slideshare.net" rel="nofollow">apc @ facebook</a> [slideshare.net].
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed a ton of the APC features are built by the facebook folks .
Here 's one of their 2008 presentations on the topic - apc @ facebook [ slideshare.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed a ton of the APC features are built by the facebook folks.
Here's one of their 2008 presentations on the topic - apc @ facebook [slideshare.net].
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507890</id>
	<title>oh boy...</title>
	<author>lien\_meat</author>
	<datestamp>1261316580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This guy is pulling numbers out of his butt, assuming random ratios of speed differences...<br>
I know it's already all been said but really...the author needs to try this:<p>Program a small application in php, and one in c++.  All the data must be stored in a database, on a remote machine (which is the way it would be done for a huge site).  Now, hardcode in some data for your first benchmark of php vs c++ to get an idea for raw php vs c++ performance doing the same task, now, comment all that out, and get the data from the database, and time that.  Guess what, I bet the times become pretty darn similar in the latter test.  No, php isn't going to be QUITE as fast...but it's gonna be really close for REAL web-application type workloads where latency from your sql server and loading all the other page content come into play.  Your clients are never going to notice the difference on the majority of applications, and I don't believe that most time is spent processing php or c++ code on a web application either.  It's waiting for the DB, and uploading content to clients.  If you truely are doing extremely data heavy tasks and lots of floating point math or something, then yes...C++ is probably a better tool, but even then, there's no reason not to use php for the non-data heavy stuff...</p><p>I know I'm just a youngster web programmer who only graduated from college a while ago and who deserves little respect on slashdot compared to some of you, but I do have a decent amount of experience with quite a few programming languages.  I learned C++ first, and know it pretty well for someone who doesn't use it constantly any more.  I think I'm very very good with PHP...and so does my boss.  Given that information, I have something to say.</p><p>If someone told me to program an entire web application from top to bottom in C++, I'd probably quit on the spot, and walk out laughing all the way to the parking lot.  I like C++ for lots of things, but there is no way in hell you would EVER get me to program an entire web application in c++.  It would take 10x longer at LEAST to develop than it would for me to do in even Java, with which I actually have less knowledge of (but still a good working knowledge of), and I don't consider ideal for web apps.  The debugging for C++ on something like that would probably drive me completely insane.  I say me, because I'm assuming that I'm building this web app and only me...like I can do very quickly in php or python or nearly any other language that does web stuff well, otherwise it would be me and all my co-workers.</p><p>Languages that are traditionally used for web development are used for a reason...and it's not how fast/efficient they run.  It's for the difference in expense of the developers (HUGE factor really), for how well the language suits the web in it's core libraries, and how well it integrates with web servers, database abstraction libraries...well I could go on forever really.  I'm not saying that C++ couldn't get libraries built for it that made its appealing as say, ruby (on rails), php, or python, but lets face it, it would take a very long time to get to that point where everything was as seamless and easy as it is in current web languages...not to mention getting hosting companies to let you run a c++ app YOU programmed on their servers (they'd have to be stupid...really freakin stupid).  C++ will just never be popular enough for web stuff to be attractive to developers...that's the bottom line.  Lack of efficiency is such a tiny price to pay compared to these other factors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This guy is pulling numbers out of his butt , assuming random ratios of speed differences.. . I know it 's already all been said but really...the author needs to try this : Program a small application in php , and one in c + + .
All the data must be stored in a database , on a remote machine ( which is the way it would be done for a huge site ) .
Now , hardcode in some data for your first benchmark of php vs c + + to get an idea for raw php vs c + + performance doing the same task , now , comment all that out , and get the data from the database , and time that .
Guess what , I bet the times become pretty darn similar in the latter test .
No , php is n't going to be QUITE as fast...but it 's gon na be really close for REAL web-application type workloads where latency from your sql server and loading all the other page content come into play .
Your clients are never going to notice the difference on the majority of applications , and I do n't believe that most time is spent processing php or c + + code on a web application either .
It 's waiting for the DB , and uploading content to clients .
If you truely are doing extremely data heavy tasks and lots of floating point math or something , then yes...C + + is probably a better tool , but even then , there 's no reason not to use php for the non-data heavy stuff...I know I 'm just a youngster web programmer who only graduated from college a while ago and who deserves little respect on slashdot compared to some of you , but I do have a decent amount of experience with quite a few programming languages .
I learned C + + first , and know it pretty well for someone who does n't use it constantly any more .
I think I 'm very very good with PHP...and so does my boss .
Given that information , I have something to say.If someone told me to program an entire web application from top to bottom in C + + , I 'd probably quit on the spot , and walk out laughing all the way to the parking lot .
I like C + + for lots of things , but there is no way in hell you would EVER get me to program an entire web application in c + + .
It would take 10x longer at LEAST to develop than it would for me to do in even Java , with which I actually have less knowledge of ( but still a good working knowledge of ) , and I do n't consider ideal for web apps .
The debugging for C + + on something like that would probably drive me completely insane .
I say me , because I 'm assuming that I 'm building this web app and only me...like I can do very quickly in php or python or nearly any other language that does web stuff well , otherwise it would be me and all my co-workers.Languages that are traditionally used for web development are used for a reason...and it 's not how fast/efficient they run .
It 's for the difference in expense of the developers ( HUGE factor really ) , for how well the language suits the web in it 's core libraries , and how well it integrates with web servers , database abstraction libraries...well I could go on forever really .
I 'm not saying that C + + could n't get libraries built for it that made its appealing as say , ruby ( on rails ) , php , or python , but lets face it , it would take a very long time to get to that point where everything was as seamless and easy as it is in current web languages...not to mention getting hosting companies to let you run a c + + app YOU programmed on their servers ( they 'd have to be stupid...really freakin stupid ) .
C + + will just never be popular enough for web stuff to be attractive to developers...that 's the bottom line .
Lack of efficiency is such a tiny price to pay compared to these other factors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This guy is pulling numbers out of his butt, assuming random ratios of speed differences...
I know it's already all been said but really...the author needs to try this:Program a small application in php, and one in c++.
All the data must be stored in a database, on a remote machine (which is the way it would be done for a huge site).
Now, hardcode in some data for your first benchmark of php vs c++ to get an idea for raw php vs c++ performance doing the same task, now, comment all that out, and get the data from the database, and time that.
Guess what, I bet the times become pretty darn similar in the latter test.
No, php isn't going to be QUITE as fast...but it's gonna be really close for REAL web-application type workloads where latency from your sql server and loading all the other page content come into play.
Your clients are never going to notice the difference on the majority of applications, and I don't believe that most time is spent processing php or c++ code on a web application either.
It's waiting for the DB, and uploading content to clients.
If you truely are doing extremely data heavy tasks and lots of floating point math or something, then yes...C++ is probably a better tool, but even then, there's no reason not to use php for the non-data heavy stuff...I know I'm just a youngster web programmer who only graduated from college a while ago and who deserves little respect on slashdot compared to some of you, but I do have a decent amount of experience with quite a few programming languages.
I learned C++ first, and know it pretty well for someone who doesn't use it constantly any more.
I think I'm very very good with PHP...and so does my boss.
Given that information, I have something to say.If someone told me to program an entire web application from top to bottom in C++, I'd probably quit on the spot, and walk out laughing all the way to the parking lot.
I like C++ for lots of things, but there is no way in hell you would EVER get me to program an entire web application in c++.
It would take 10x longer at LEAST to develop than it would for me to do in even Java, with which I actually have less knowledge of (but still a good working knowledge of), and I don't consider ideal for web apps.
The debugging for C++ on something like that would probably drive me completely insane.
I say me, because I'm assuming that I'm building this web app and only me...like I can do very quickly in php or python or nearly any other language that does web stuff well, otherwise it would be me and all my co-workers.Languages that are traditionally used for web development are used for a reason...and it's not how fast/efficient they run.
It's for the difference in expense of the developers (HUGE factor really), for how well the language suits the web in it's core libraries, and how well it integrates with web servers, database abstraction libraries...well I could go on forever really.
I'm not saying that C++ couldn't get libraries built for it that made its appealing as say, ruby (on rails), php, or python, but lets face it, it would take a very long time to get to that point where everything was as seamless and easy as it is in current web languages...not to mention getting hosting companies to let you run a c++ app YOU programmed on their servers (they'd have to be stupid...really freakin stupid).
C++ will just never be popular enough for web stuff to be attractive to developers...that's the bottom line.
Lack of efficiency is such a tiny price to pay compared to these other factors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30532584</id>
	<title>Re:A C app would be much faster</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1261503000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The proposed ratio of 1:10 is real, if not bigger. And here's why:</p><p>1.) For each request, PHP has to load entire application responsible for that particular response, including its configuration, etc. With memcache(d), you have to instantiate connection classes and reconfigure them, per request. Languages like C/C++, Python and Ruby have different architecture to begin with. They load ONCE and each request triggers a FUNCTION or METHOD of a class, with all the app-specific configuration, db and memcached connections done and configured on app init, NOT per request.</p></div><p>With caches like APC, overhead is very much mitigated. PHP can also use a pool of connections to memcache/database to minimize connection delays.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2.) TFA mentions microsecond relevance! Even a simple echo "Hello World" will take much more time than similar action in C. I have yet to see a PHP helloworld app that does it in under 1msec, let alone the microseconds required.</p></div><p>helloworld.php takes 0.363ms on average here on my laptop.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3.) Arrays in PHP are slow, being always hashmaps. Other data structures can speed up things. You don't always need hashmaps. SPLFixedArray() is a joke, btw, and available only as of 5.3. Can't compare it to a vector anyways, and lots of fixed structures can be represented by structs or classes in C which are anways faster than in PHP. Also the app can instantiate them once on init, and just (re)load when required.</p></div><p>PHP can also instantiate it once, with the use of APC cache. It caches opcodes (and thereby constant values/arrays), and you can also cache any data you want, and loading that data is fast since APC is written in C (some small overhead).</p><p><div class="quote"><p>4.) Even if all the app does it parse input vars and call memcache(d) / database funcs/methods to retrieve/store data, those calls are faster in C. Params can be parsed quicker in C, not requiring hashmaps for instance.</p></div><p>Is waiting on I/O in C faster than in PHP? Nope. So if you're mainly doing database lookups you'll see extremely low speedup porting your code to C.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>5.) FastCGI is crap. If this app were to be done in C, then it would require its own HTTP layer, epoll based (for Linux). It can take out all the crap in HTTP that is not requred to parse the AJAX calls, and does not need to be "generic" enough to deliver static content.</p></div><p>I know. I'd like to get rid of that crap too. But is it really worth it? Making a very efficient server with all the capabilities your application has now, with all the error checking, testing and security protections would take months. <a href="http://viswaug.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/http-headers-status1.png" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">HTTP is more complicated than you'd think.</a> [wordpress.com]. Is the small speedup you'd gain, versus the maintenance of a much larger application worth it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>6.) For such dedicated and distributed deployments, garbage collection is sometimes not required. For instace, fixed-length stuctures can be preallocated upon app init, and the app can really take as much RAM as possible on startup. Yes, that would limit the MAX number of users/connections per server, but so what? The app dominates the server, nothing else is required to run (except basic OS environment for the app), so fixed memory consumption is not a problem.</p><p>7.) Even though each request has to wait for I/O of some sorts, either from memcache(d), from disk or from DB, you can process much more of these per front-end server and just scale backend servers as required. For example, with PHP your front-end server can serve 100k/sec, having X DB backends and Y memcached backends. With a C application, the front end can serve, say, 1M/sec. You still get to keep one front-end, even though you had to put more backends.</p><p>In short, you can significantly reduce the number of servers required if the app was written in C.</p></div><p>You're pulling those numbers out of thin air. You still have to wait for data! You're not magically reducing latencies by switching to C. There are many layers of latencies in a complicated web application, from the front end facing the user to the backend storage. Making one layer go faster doesn't magically fix the other bottlenecks. And the bottlenecks are mostly I/O or network latency. (And developers...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed ratio of 1 : 10 is real , if not bigger .
And here 's why : 1 .
) For each request , PHP has to load entire application responsible for that particular response , including its configuration , etc .
With memcache ( d ) , you have to instantiate connection classes and reconfigure them , per request .
Languages like C/C + + , Python and Ruby have different architecture to begin with .
They load ONCE and each request triggers a FUNCTION or METHOD of a class , with all the app-specific configuration , db and memcached connections done and configured on app init , NOT per request.With caches like APC , overhead is very much mitigated .
PHP can also use a pool of connections to memcache/database to minimize connection delays.2 .
) TFA mentions microsecond relevance !
Even a simple echo " Hello World " will take much more time than similar action in C. I have yet to see a PHP helloworld app that does it in under 1msec , let alone the microseconds required.helloworld.php takes 0.363ms on average here on my laptop.3 .
) Arrays in PHP are slow , being always hashmaps .
Other data structures can speed up things .
You do n't always need hashmaps .
SPLFixedArray ( ) is a joke , btw , and available only as of 5.3 .
Ca n't compare it to a vector anyways , and lots of fixed structures can be represented by structs or classes in C which are anways faster than in PHP .
Also the app can instantiate them once on init , and just ( re ) load when required.PHP can also instantiate it once , with the use of APC cache .
It caches opcodes ( and thereby constant values/arrays ) , and you can also cache any data you want , and loading that data is fast since APC is written in C ( some small overhead ) .4 .
) Even if all the app does it parse input vars and call memcache ( d ) / database funcs/methods to retrieve/store data , those calls are faster in C. Params can be parsed quicker in C , not requiring hashmaps for instance.Is waiting on I/O in C faster than in PHP ?
Nope. So if you 're mainly doing database lookups you 'll see extremely low speedup porting your code to C.5 .
) FastCGI is crap .
If this app were to be done in C , then it would require its own HTTP layer , epoll based ( for Linux ) .
It can take out all the crap in HTTP that is not requred to parse the AJAX calls , and does not need to be " generic " enough to deliver static content.I know .
I 'd like to get rid of that crap too .
But is it really worth it ?
Making a very efficient server with all the capabilities your application has now , with all the error checking , testing and security protections would take months .
HTTP is more complicated than you 'd think .
[ wordpress.com ] . Is the small speedup you 'd gain , versus the maintenance of a much larger application worth it ? 6 .
) For such dedicated and distributed deployments , garbage collection is sometimes not required .
For instace , fixed-length stuctures can be preallocated upon app init , and the app can really take as much RAM as possible on startup .
Yes , that would limit the MAX number of users/connections per server , but so what ?
The app dominates the server , nothing else is required to run ( except basic OS environment for the app ) , so fixed memory consumption is not a problem.7 .
) Even though each request has to wait for I/O of some sorts , either from memcache ( d ) , from disk or from DB , you can process much more of these per front-end server and just scale backend servers as required .
For example , with PHP your front-end server can serve 100k/sec , having X DB backends and Y memcached backends .
With a C application , the front end can serve , say , 1M/sec .
You still get to keep one front-end , even though you had to put more backends.In short , you can significantly reduce the number of servers required if the app was written in C.You 're pulling those numbers out of thin air .
You still have to wait for data !
You 're not magically reducing latencies by switching to C. There are many layers of latencies in a complicated web application , from the front end facing the user to the backend storage .
Making one layer go faster does n't magically fix the other bottlenecks .
And the bottlenecks are mostly I/O or network latency .
( And developers... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed ratio of 1:10 is real, if not bigger.
And here's why:1.
) For each request, PHP has to load entire application responsible for that particular response, including its configuration, etc.
With memcache(d), you have to instantiate connection classes and reconfigure them, per request.
Languages like C/C++, Python and Ruby have different architecture to begin with.
They load ONCE and each request triggers a FUNCTION or METHOD of a class, with all the app-specific configuration, db and memcached connections done and configured on app init, NOT per request.With caches like APC, overhead is very much mitigated.
PHP can also use a pool of connections to memcache/database to minimize connection delays.2.
) TFA mentions microsecond relevance!
Even a simple echo "Hello World" will take much more time than similar action in C. I have yet to see a PHP helloworld app that does it in under 1msec, let alone the microseconds required.helloworld.php takes 0.363ms on average here on my laptop.3.
) Arrays in PHP are slow, being always hashmaps.
Other data structures can speed up things.
You don't always need hashmaps.
SPLFixedArray() is a joke, btw, and available only as of 5.3.
Can't compare it to a vector anyways, and lots of fixed structures can be represented by structs or classes in C which are anways faster than in PHP.
Also the app can instantiate them once on init, and just (re)load when required.PHP can also instantiate it once, with the use of APC cache.
It caches opcodes (and thereby constant values/arrays), and you can also cache any data you want, and loading that data is fast since APC is written in C (some small overhead).4.
) Even if all the app does it parse input vars and call memcache(d) / database funcs/methods to retrieve/store data, those calls are faster in C. Params can be parsed quicker in C, not requiring hashmaps for instance.Is waiting on I/O in C faster than in PHP?
Nope. So if you're mainly doing database lookups you'll see extremely low speedup porting your code to C.5.
) FastCGI is crap.
If this app were to be done in C, then it would require its own HTTP layer, epoll based (for Linux).
It can take out all the crap in HTTP that is not requred to parse the AJAX calls, and does not need to be "generic" enough to deliver static content.I know.
I'd like to get rid of that crap too.
But is it really worth it?
Making a very efficient server with all the capabilities your application has now, with all the error checking, testing and security protections would take months.
HTTP is more complicated than you'd think.
[wordpress.com]. Is the small speedup you'd gain, versus the maintenance of a much larger application worth it?6.
) For such dedicated and distributed deployments, garbage collection is sometimes not required.
For instace, fixed-length stuctures can be preallocated upon app init, and the app can really take as much RAM as possible on startup.
Yes, that would limit the MAX number of users/connections per server, but so what?
The app dominates the server, nothing else is required to run (except basic OS environment for the app), so fixed memory consumption is not a problem.7.
) Even though each request has to wait for I/O of some sorts, either from memcache(d), from disk or from DB, you can process much more of these per front-end server and just scale backend servers as required.
For example, with PHP your front-end server can serve 100k/sec, having X DB backends and Y memcached backends.
With a C application, the front end can serve, say, 1M/sec.
You still get to keep one front-end, even though you had to put more backends.In short, you can significantly reduce the number of servers required if the app was written in C.You're pulling those numbers out of thin air.
You still have to wait for data!
You're not magically reducing latencies by switching to C. There are many layers of latencies in a complicated web application, from the front end facing the user to the backend storage.
Making one layer go faster doesn't magically fix the other bottlenecks.
And the bottlenecks are mostly I/O or network latency.
(And developers...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505236</id>
	<title>C++ is bad for the environment</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1261335360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C/C++ is mabye 10-100x faster and more efficient <i>for carefully written inner loops</i>.  At the level of whole systems, it's an entirely different story. Because C++ lacks garbage collection, people end up retaining far more memory than they need to.  Because algorithms are far harder to express in C++, people end up using brute force algorithms (linear search, etc.) a lot. Because templates need specially compiled versions for each combination of template arguments, you end up with dozens of different instances of basically the same code.</p><p>For web applications, there's probably not much of a difference either way;  but in scripting languages like PHP, all the inner loops that are needed are already written in C.  For scientific computing, C++ is acceptable because a lot of applications really are mainly about the inner loops.</p><p>But for many applications, like GUIs, C++ not only fails to be faster, it also ends up making everything a lot slower and more bloated.  If our desktops were largely written in Python, Ruby, or Smalltalk, we'd be using a lot less energy and be able to get by with smaller, less-powerful machines.  That's in addition to all the savings from the reduced number of bugs and reduced development costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C/C + + is mabye 10-100x faster and more efficient for carefully written inner loops .
At the level of whole systems , it 's an entirely different story .
Because C + + lacks garbage collection , people end up retaining far more memory than they need to .
Because algorithms are far harder to express in C + + , people end up using brute force algorithms ( linear search , etc .
) a lot .
Because templates need specially compiled versions for each combination of template arguments , you end up with dozens of different instances of basically the same code.For web applications , there 's probably not much of a difference either way ; but in scripting languages like PHP , all the inner loops that are needed are already written in C. For scientific computing , C + + is acceptable because a lot of applications really are mainly about the inner loops.But for many applications , like GUIs , C + + not only fails to be faster , it also ends up making everything a lot slower and more bloated .
If our desktops were largely written in Python , Ruby , or Smalltalk , we 'd be using a lot less energy and be able to get by with smaller , less-powerful machines .
That 's in addition to all the savings from the reduced number of bugs and reduced development costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C/C++ is mabye 10-100x faster and more efficient for carefully written inner loops.
At the level of whole systems, it's an entirely different story.
Because C++ lacks garbage collection, people end up retaining far more memory than they need to.
Because algorithms are far harder to express in C++, people end up using brute force algorithms (linear search, etc.
) a lot.
Because templates need specially compiled versions for each combination of template arguments, you end up with dozens of different instances of basically the same code.For web applications, there's probably not much of a difference either way;  but in scripting languages like PHP, all the inner loops that are needed are already written in C.  For scientific computing, C++ is acceptable because a lot of applications really are mainly about the inner loops.But for many applications, like GUIs, C++ not only fails to be faster, it also ends up making everything a lot slower and more bloated.
If our desktops were largely written in Python, Ruby, or Smalltalk, we'd be using a lot less energy and be able to get by with smaller, less-powerful machines.
That's in addition to all the savings from the reduced number of bugs and reduced development costs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506342</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1261301400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Faced with this piece of information, someone thought the logical thing to do was to, er, write an entirely new language?"by my understanding, the whole new language slant is because of the nightmare of c++ code out there to reuse, with unintended consequences. php is very web centric and java the last attempt at a 'universal' coding setup. python is an example of new language and how more complicated new language implementation is.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Faced with this piece of information , someone thought the logical thing to do was to , er , write an entirely new language ?
" by my understanding , the whole new language slant is because of the nightmare of c + + code out there to reuse , with unintended consequences .
php is very web centric and java the last attempt at a 'universal ' coding setup .
python is an example of new language and how more complicated new language implementation is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Faced with this piece of information, someone thought the logical thing to do was to, er, write an entirely new language?
"by my understanding, the whole new language slant is because of the nightmare of c++ code out there to reuse, with unintended consequences.
php is very web centric and java the last attempt at a 'universal' coding setup.
python is an example of new language and how more complicated new language implementation is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506272</id>
	<title>Since we're making assumptions.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261300680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume the original article doesn't have any basis in reality.</p><p>I can also assume, based on those server counts, what the service does, and what it provides to users, that something about Facebook doesn't have an extremely efficient operation.</p><p>Its fairly obvious that their solution to performance problems was to scale out rather than optimize.  There are god knows how many reasons why they could have made that choice, I have no idea if it really was a good one or a bad one, but I'm fairly certain they could be far more environmentally friendly by using C or C++ on their front ends, even if you you take longer to develope it or you hire more developers (which there is no logical reason why you should, unless you hire incompetent C/C++ devs).  Probably would cost more, PHP devs are a dime a dozen, competent C devs aren't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume the original article does n't have any basis in reality.I can also assume , based on those server counts , what the service does , and what it provides to users , that something about Facebook does n't have an extremely efficient operation.Its fairly obvious that their solution to performance problems was to scale out rather than optimize .
There are god knows how many reasons why they could have made that choice , I have no idea if it really was a good one or a bad one , but I 'm fairly certain they could be far more environmentally friendly by using C or C + + on their front ends , even if you you take longer to develope it or you hire more developers ( which there is no logical reason why you should , unless you hire incompetent C/C + + devs ) .
Probably would cost more , PHP devs are a dime a dozen , competent C devs are n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume the original article doesn't have any basis in reality.I can also assume, based on those server counts, what the service does, and what it provides to users, that something about Facebook doesn't have an extremely efficient operation.Its fairly obvious that their solution to performance problems was to scale out rather than optimize.
There are god knows how many reasons why they could have made that choice, I have no idea if it really was a good one or a bad one, but I'm fairly certain they could be far more environmentally friendly by using C or C++ on their front ends, even if you you take longer to develope it or you hire more developers (which there is no logical reason why you should, unless you hire incompetent C/C++ devs).
Probably would cost more, PHP devs are a dime a dozen, competent C devs aren't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30514100</id>
	<title>Re:PHP vs. C++</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is idiotic, and is typical of the kind of pseudo-science underlying much of the climate alarmism currently <b>in Vogue</b>.</i></p><p>There, fixed that for ya'.  I assume you mean that this is the kind of crap which gets into general-interest magazines like Vogue (as compared to the real research which mostly appears in academic journals).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is idiotic , and is typical of the kind of pseudo-science underlying much of the climate alarmism currently in Vogue.There , fixed that for ya' .
I assume you mean that this is the kind of crap which gets into general-interest magazines like Vogue ( as compared to the real research which mostly appears in academic journals ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is idiotic, and is typical of the kind of pseudo-science underlying much of the climate alarmism currently in Vogue.There, fixed that for ya'.
I assume you mean that this is the kind of crap which gets into general-interest magazines like Vogue (as compared to the real research which mostly appears in academic journals).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504390</id>
	<title>Assuming...</title>
	<author>Xugumad</author>
	<datestamp>1261329180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code"</p><p>ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH</p><p>Why? On what evidence? I mean, I hate PHP as much as the next guy, but last time I wrote a web application platform in C++, I got to the end, analysed the result and went "Great, I've made the fast bit even faster. Now, about that database engine..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C + + versus PHP code " ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHWhy ?
On what evidence ?
I mean , I hate PHP as much as the next guy , but last time I wrote a web application platform in C + + , I got to the end , analysed the result and went " Great , I 've made the fast bit even faster .
Now , about that database engine... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code"ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHWhy?
On what evidence?
I mean, I hate PHP as much as the next guy, but last time I wrote a web application platform in C++, I got to the end, analysed the result and went "Great, I've made the fast bit even faster.
Now, about that database engine..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504358</id>
	<title>A trolling weak argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a troll. Any point or argument based on assumptions is very weak.  Here there are <i>two</i>:  "..Let's assume this to be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." and "...assuming a conservative ratio of 10...". </p><p>
Don't make stuff up.
</p><p>-<i>Foredecker</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a troll .
Any point or argument based on assumptions is very weak .
Here there are two : " ..Let 's assume this to be ... " and " ...assuming a conservative ratio of 10... " .
Do n't make stuff up .
-Foredecker</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a troll.
Any point or argument based on assumptions is very weak.
Here there are two:  "..Let's assume this to be ..." and "...assuming a conservative ratio of 10...".
Don't make stuff up.
-Foredecker </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504274</id>
	<title>Sounds like cheap C-- drugs !</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1261328400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... what are you smoking???<p>
Yes, C-- (or even FORTRAN) is less CPU in-efficient than PHP (or most any interpreted langauge).  Why do you think CPU is limiting performance and causing the high server count?</p><p>
GOOG has so many servers to be \_fast\_ (keep their DB in RAM).  Facebook may be doing the same, or for disk.</p><p>
Can we \_please\_ moderate stories?  This one is -1 {TROLL}.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... what are you smoking ? ? ?
Yes , C-- ( or even FORTRAN ) is less CPU in-efficient than PHP ( or most any interpreted langauge ) .
Why do you think CPU is limiting performance and causing the high server count ?
GOOG has so many servers to be \ _fast \ _ ( keep their DB in RAM ) .
Facebook may be doing the same , or for disk .
Can we \ _please \ _ moderate stories ?
This one is -1 { TROLL } .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... what are you smoking???
Yes, C-- (or even FORTRAN) is less CPU in-efficient than PHP (or most any interpreted langauge).
Why do you think CPU is limiting performance and causing the high server count?
GOOG has so many servers to be \_fast\_ (keep their DB in RAM).
Facebook may be doing the same, or for disk.
Can we \_please\_ moderate stories?
This one is -1 {TROLL}.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30520416</id>
	<title>Re:Hells about to freeze over ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java sucks for web development.  I work in jsp/java/oracle every day and it absolutely blows.  It completely over complicates things. You use toplink to read from the database, then map to the domain model, then map to the form, then use the form in jsp render. You've got all these xml files flying around and don't even get me started on the "expression language".  Java shouldn't be used for web programming because the objects don't stay around! It makes no sense, all you ever need to do for web development is to write strings.  The language was made to hold objects that stay around for an extended period of time (hence the need for "garbage collection"), but in web programming, all you really end up creating are structs that represent rows in the database and "classes" that are basically just groups of functions.  Once you've pull the stuff from the database and written the response, all those objects are gone.  They served no purpose but to slow everything down.</p><p>I'm all for three-tiered design, but as I've witnessed at my current job, you can even screw that up in java.  PHP, python, perl are good because the http protocol is stateless.  It doesn't  fit well with event driven programming where the program sits there in a state, the user does something, and then depending on what that was, the program alters its state.  That's what java (and c++ and c#) are good for. Real applications (like web servers) that stay in memory for more than a few seconds.  For a web "application", the "state" of the program is the database.  So, all you really need to do is to modify that.  That's why scripts are better.  They get a request, change the database based on what was sent and then show the results.  That's all they ever need to do, that's what they're made for.  They don't hang around waiting for more user input, that's what the web server does.</p><p>And some people might talk about "maintainability".  You can screw up in java as easily as you can screw up in php.  As a matter of fact, because java adds so much unneeded complexity to code whose ultimate purpose is to create and show the results of an sql query, I'd argue that java code is less maintainable than php, perl, or python because there's bound to be so much more of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java sucks for web development .
I work in jsp/java/oracle every day and it absolutely blows .
It completely over complicates things .
You use toplink to read from the database , then map to the domain model , then map to the form , then use the form in jsp render .
You 've got all these xml files flying around and do n't even get me started on the " expression language " .
Java should n't be used for web programming because the objects do n't stay around !
It makes no sense , all you ever need to do for web development is to write strings .
The language was made to hold objects that stay around for an extended period of time ( hence the need for " garbage collection " ) , but in web programming , all you really end up creating are structs that represent rows in the database and " classes " that are basically just groups of functions .
Once you 've pull the stuff from the database and written the response , all those objects are gone .
They served no purpose but to slow everything down.I 'm all for three-tiered design , but as I 've witnessed at my current job , you can even screw that up in java .
PHP , python , perl are good because the http protocol is stateless .
It does n't fit well with event driven programming where the program sits there in a state , the user does something , and then depending on what that was , the program alters its state .
That 's what java ( and c + + and c # ) are good for .
Real applications ( like web servers ) that stay in memory for more than a few seconds .
For a web " application " , the " state " of the program is the database .
So , all you really need to do is to modify that .
That 's why scripts are better .
They get a request , change the database based on what was sent and then show the results .
That 's all they ever need to do , that 's what they 're made for .
They do n't hang around waiting for more user input , that 's what the web server does.And some people might talk about " maintainability " .
You can screw up in java as easily as you can screw up in php .
As a matter of fact , because java adds so much unneeded complexity to code whose ultimate purpose is to create and show the results of an sql query , I 'd argue that java code is less maintainable than php , perl , or python because there 's bound to be so much more of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java sucks for web development.
I work in jsp/java/oracle every day and it absolutely blows.
It completely over complicates things.
You use toplink to read from the database, then map to the domain model, then map to the form, then use the form in jsp render.
You've got all these xml files flying around and don't even get me started on the "expression language".
Java shouldn't be used for web programming because the objects don't stay around!
It makes no sense, all you ever need to do for web development is to write strings.
The language was made to hold objects that stay around for an extended period of time (hence the need for "garbage collection"), but in web programming, all you really end up creating are structs that represent rows in the database and "classes" that are basically just groups of functions.
Once you've pull the stuff from the database and written the response, all those objects are gone.
They served no purpose but to slow everything down.I'm all for three-tiered design, but as I've witnessed at my current job, you can even screw that up in java.
PHP, python, perl are good because the http protocol is stateless.
It doesn't  fit well with event driven programming where the program sits there in a state, the user does something, and then depending on what that was, the program alters its state.
That's what java (and c++ and c#) are good for.
Real applications (like web servers) that stay in memory for more than a few seconds.
For a web "application", the "state" of the program is the database.
So, all you really need to do is to modify that.
That's why scripts are better.
They get a request, change the database based on what was sent and then show the results.
That's all they ever need to do, that's what they're made for.
They don't hang around waiting for more user input, that's what the web server does.And some people might talk about "maintainability".
You can screw up in java as easily as you can screw up in php.
As a matter of fact, because java adds so much unneeded complexity to code whose ultimate purpose is to create and show the results of an sql query, I'd argue that java code is less maintainable than php, perl, or python because there's bound to be so much more of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508040</id>
	<title>Real numbers and graphs</title>
	<author>PassMark</author>
	<datestamp>1261318560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have done the actual benchmarks, and the original post matches our experience.<br>PHP gives processing times of around 1 second (for a search function) and C++ code via a CGI gaves times of 0.1 sec. A ten times improvement.</p><p>Graphs and numbers are here,<br><a href="http://www.wrensoft.com/zoom/benchmarks.html" title="wrensoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.wrensoft.com/zoom/benchmarks.html</a> [wrensoft.com]</p><p>Further when we switched to FastCGI we saw another 5 fold improvement, after optimising the code for FastCGI.</p><p>So I would believe a 50 folder improvement should be possible by going from PHP to FastCGI (and rewriting code to suit a FastCGI)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have done the actual benchmarks , and the original post matches our experience.PHP gives processing times of around 1 second ( for a search function ) and C + + code via a CGI gaves times of 0.1 sec .
A ten times improvement.Graphs and numbers are here,http : //www.wrensoft.com/zoom/benchmarks.html [ wrensoft.com ] Further when we switched to FastCGI we saw another 5 fold improvement , after optimising the code for FastCGI.So I would believe a 50 folder improvement should be possible by going from PHP to FastCGI ( and rewriting code to suit a FastCGI )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have done the actual benchmarks, and the original post matches our experience.PHP gives processing times of around 1 second (for a search function) and C++ code via a CGI gaves times of 0.1 sec.
A ten times improvement.Graphs and numbers are here,http://www.wrensoft.com/zoom/benchmarks.html [wrensoft.com]Further when we switched to FastCGI we saw another 5 fold improvement, after optimising the code for FastCGI.So I would believe a 50 folder improvement should be possible by going from PHP to FastCGI (and rewriting code to suit a FastCGI)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</id>
	<title>Why stop there?</title>
	<author>Freestonepilgrim</author>
	<datestamp>1261328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not rewrite everything in assembly? This comparison comes to a conclusion without any facts to back it up. As others have pointed out there is development time and compile time associated with C++... and what about ongoing development? Where does 10-1 come from? Are you assuming they aren't doing any optimization or using any sort of accelerator? I've personally re-written code in C++ from php, and then done the comparison. In our case, we decided the extra maintainability  was worth the approx 10-20\% increase in speed we saw.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not rewrite everything in assembly ?
This comparison comes to a conclusion without any facts to back it up .
As others have pointed out there is development time and compile time associated with C + + ... and what about ongoing development ?
Where does 10-1 come from ?
Are you assuming they are n't doing any optimization or using any sort of accelerator ?
I 've personally re-written code in C + + from php , and then done the comparison .
In our case , we decided the extra maintainability was worth the approx 10-20 \ % increase in speed we saw .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not rewrite everything in assembly?
This comparison comes to a conclusion without any facts to back it up.
As others have pointed out there is development time and compile time associated with C++... and what about ongoing development?
Where does 10-1 come from?
Are you assuming they aren't doing any optimization or using any sort of accelerator?
I've personally re-written code in C++ from php, and then done the comparison.
In our case, we decided the extra maintainability  was worth the approx 10-20\% increase in speed we saw.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505412</id>
	<title>They would need zero servers if they used C++</title>
	<author>lma</author>
	<datestamp>1261336860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's because if they were writing in C++ they would still be writing the application and wouldn't have any users yet.

Larry</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because if they were writing in C + + they would still be writing the application and would n't have any users yet .
Larry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because if they were writing in C++ they would still be writing the application and wouldn't have any users yet.
Larry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505810</id>
	<title>on my top then for stupid it articles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261340460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi</p><p>This is one of the most stupids post about computer I have ever read. Has the author ever written something like facebook (btw i did see http://www.suvi.org/adrbook/  but on the main subject) If facebook would be implemented in C++ it would probably 1) not exist 2) more expensive (means more trees killed) for production and maintenance 3) and probably be crashing several time because of some implementation faults.</p><p>Cheers suvi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HiThis is one of the most stupids post about computer I have ever read .
Has the author ever written something like facebook ( btw i did see http : //www.suvi.org/adrbook/ but on the main subject ) If facebook would be implemented in C + + it would probably 1 ) not exist 2 ) more expensive ( means more trees killed ) for production and maintenance 3 ) and probably be crashing several time because of some implementation faults.Cheers suvi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HiThis is one of the most stupids post about computer I have ever read.
Has the author ever written something like facebook (btw i did see http://www.suvi.org/adrbook/  but on the main subject) If facebook would be implemented in C++ it would probably 1) not exist 2) more expensive (means more trees killed) for production and maintenance 3) and probably be crashing several time because of some implementation faults.Cheers suvi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30515218</id>
	<title>Web development is mostly String processing</title>
	<author>fuzzylollipop</author>
	<datestamp>1261425360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and as much as I had to say it PHP is about as efficient as any other language that has a C based runtime at String processing. There is probably NOTHING to be gained by adding the complexity and cost of a lower level language like C++. Now re-writing it in Erlang, that might get you something<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>and as much as I had to say it PHP is about as efficient as any other language that has a C based runtime at String processing .
There is probably NOTHING to be gained by adding the complexity and cost of a lower level language like C + + .
Now re-writing it in Erlang , that might get you something ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and as much as I had to say it PHP is about as efficient as any other language that has a C based runtime at String processing.
There is probably NOTHING to be gained by adding the complexity and cost of a lower level language like C++.
Now re-writing it in Erlang, that might get you something ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505570</id>
	<title>Process overhead?</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1261338540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The PHP interpreter can and should run in-process to the webserver. Compiled C++, not so much.</p><p>Now, I imagine Facebook's scripts are really quite simple - fetch from the database and do some formatting. Moreover, they're called like a thousand times a second. Grabbing from the DB is already the expensive bit; C++ won't help that. But starting thousands of processes <i>a second</i> can't possibly be faster than the in-server interpreter effectively just looping.</p><p>Am I missing something or is this a pointlessly stupid article, bordering on troll?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The PHP interpreter can and should run in-process to the webserver .
Compiled C + + , not so much.Now , I imagine Facebook 's scripts are really quite simple - fetch from the database and do some formatting .
Moreover , they 're called like a thousand times a second .
Grabbing from the DB is already the expensive bit ; C + + wo n't help that .
But starting thousands of processes a second ca n't possibly be faster than the in-server interpreter effectively just looping.Am I missing something or is this a pointlessly stupid article , bordering on troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PHP interpreter can and should run in-process to the webserver.
Compiled C++, not so much.Now, I imagine Facebook's scripts are really quite simple - fetch from the database and do some formatting.
Moreover, they're called like a thousand times a second.
Grabbing from the DB is already the expensive bit; C++ won't help that.
But starting thousands of processes a second can't possibly be faster than the in-server interpreter effectively just looping.Am I missing something or is this a pointlessly stupid article, bordering on troll?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504420</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Taur0</author>
	<datestamp>1261329300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's not an environmental impact at all. Hardly. What you're asking is: "What's the environmental impact of employing more programmers?"

Sure, let's say worst-case, facebook hires programmers that would have got another job elsewhere, that other company must now hire different programmers and it trickles down eventually until some people who were going to be unemployed get a job programming somewhere. Okay, so now those people have a job. Let's ignore the fact that you're essentially saying that we should cut down emissions by making people unemployed.

It's true that having a job will probably cause them to contribute a bit carbon emissions than if they were unemployed, but studies have shown that the large amount of our personal environmental impact is non-reducable (around 50\%), even if you were to go homeless and live on the streets, we might see maybe a 10-20\% increase of their personal carbon emissions. For even a couple dozen programmers that's nothing compared to running 20,000 more servers per year and that's absolute worst case.

What you're arguing is the economic cost for facebook, whether it's worth all the man-hours to make their severs more efficient. That's debatable, but if you want an example, you just have to look at Google where they have a team that is devoted to increasing efficiency, despite the fact that they are already running some of the most power-efficient servers in the country.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not an environmental impact at all .
Hardly. What you 're asking is : " What 's the environmental impact of employing more programmers ?
" Sure , let 's say worst-case , facebook hires programmers that would have got another job elsewhere , that other company must now hire different programmers and it trickles down eventually until some people who were going to be unemployed get a job programming somewhere .
Okay , so now those people have a job .
Let 's ignore the fact that you 're essentially saying that we should cut down emissions by making people unemployed .
It 's true that having a job will probably cause them to contribute a bit carbon emissions than if they were unemployed , but studies have shown that the large amount of our personal environmental impact is non-reducable ( around 50 \ % ) , even if you were to go homeless and live on the streets , we might see maybe a 10-20 \ % increase of their personal carbon emissions .
For even a couple dozen programmers that 's nothing compared to running 20,000 more servers per year and that 's absolute worst case .
What you 're arguing is the economic cost for facebook , whether it 's worth all the man-hours to make their severs more efficient .
That 's debatable , but if you want an example , you just have to look at Google where they have a team that is devoted to increasing efficiency , despite the fact that they are already running some of the most power-efficient servers in the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not an environmental impact at all.
Hardly. What you're asking is: "What's the environmental impact of employing more programmers?
"

Sure, let's say worst-case, facebook hires programmers that would have got another job elsewhere, that other company must now hire different programmers and it trickles down eventually until some people who were going to be unemployed get a job programming somewhere.
Okay, so now those people have a job.
Let's ignore the fact that you're essentially saying that we should cut down emissions by making people unemployed.
It's true that having a job will probably cause them to contribute a bit carbon emissions than if they were unemployed, but studies have shown that the large amount of our personal environmental impact is non-reducable (around 50\%), even if you were to go homeless and live on the streets, we might see maybe a 10-20\% increase of their personal carbon emissions.
For even a couple dozen programmers that's nothing compared to running 20,000 more servers per year and that's absolute worst case.
What you're arguing is the economic cost for facebook, whether it's worth all the man-hours to make their severs more efficient.
That's debatable, but if you want an example, you just have to look at Google where they have a team that is devoted to increasing efficiency, despite the fact that they are already running some of the most power-efficient servers in the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505672</id>
	<title>Re:Umm... no.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261339320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They use a lot more than that... They've written their own extensions to php to bypass most of the traditional bottlenecks.  Since you write the extensions in c or c++ anyway those speed sensitive parts run exactly as quickly as they would if the entire application were written in c or c++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They use a lot more than that... They 've written their own extensions to php to bypass most of the traditional bottlenecks .
Since you write the extensions in c or c + + anyway those speed sensitive parts run exactly as quickly as they would if the entire application were written in c or c + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use a lot more than that... They've written their own extensions to php to bypass most of the traditional bottlenecks.
Since you write the extensions in c or c++ anyway those speed sensitive parts run exactly as quickly as they would if the entire application were written in c or c++.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504902</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On top of that C++ webapps are almost certainly going to be crashier, leakier and much slower to develop than something written in PHP, Java etc.That's the reason why C++ isn't used much for web apps these days. The latency in most web apps isn't the page anyway, it's reading a file, waiting for a database to return or something else. Changing the language for marginal speed gains while taking a huge hit on reliability, uptime and the constant server recycling simply isn't an option for most companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On top of that C + + webapps are almost certainly going to be crashier , leakier and much slower to develop than something written in PHP , Java etc.That 's the reason why C + + is n't used much for web apps these days .
The latency in most web apps is n't the page anyway , it 's reading a file , waiting for a database to return or something else .
Changing the language for marginal speed gains while taking a huge hit on reliability , uptime and the constant server recycling simply is n't an option for most companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On top of that C++ webapps are almost certainly going to be crashier, leakier and much slower to develop than something written in PHP, Java etc.That's the reason why C++ isn't used much for web apps these days.
The latency in most web apps isn't the page anyway, it's reading a file, waiting for a database to return or something else.
Changing the language for marginal speed gains while taking a huge hit on reliability, uptime and the constant server recycling simply isn't an option for most companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504444</id>
	<title>Write it in Java!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>facebook should be re-written in Java.</p><p>It could run on a java interpreter, written in java, that would give it ultimate speed compared to C++.</p><p>C++ is dying, netcraft confirms it, Java is faster than C++, it's the wave of the future!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>facebook should be re-written in Java.It could run on a java interpreter , written in java , that would give it ultimate speed compared to C + + .C + + is dying , netcraft confirms it , Java is faster than C + + , it 's the wave of the future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>facebook should be re-written in Java.It could run on a java interpreter, written in java, that would give it ultimate speed compared to C++.C++ is dying, netcraft confirms it, Java is faster than C++, it's the wave of the future!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516472</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261388220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I remember when it was the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl. What does it offer from a theoretical and engineering PoV, apart from a Visual Basic learning curve?</p></div><p>Market penetration. From managerial perspective, you can hire PHP developers a dime a dozen, and replace them very quickly if needed. From developer perspective, you can grab any of those "PHP in 10 nanoseconds for complete idiots" books, an Apache+PHP+MySQL bundle installer for Windows, and learn it in a few days to the level sufficient to be hired.</p><p>Of course, the typical quality of a PHP solution is what you'd expect from such approach, but when did it ever stop anyone?</p><p>If you mean technological advantages, than there are none whatsoever. As a language, PHP today is essentially Java with weak typing, no proper packages, namespaces just being introduced (so no existing library uses them), and some very questionable language design decisions (like $a[1] is the same element as $a["1"], but $a["01"] is distinct).</p><p>From library perspective, the coverage is okay - about what you'd expect from a decent modern platform - but API design is essentially random and inconsistent with no common guidelines followed, and things such as Unicode support are usually an afterthought.</p><p>In short, there's nothing there over Python or Ruby, or even Groovy or Boo.</p><p>As to why it ended up in the spot it is in? Well, it's actually fairly obvious when you look at the history. PHP version 4, the point at which its popularity skyrocketed, was released in 2000. At that point the established frameworks were ASP (not ASP.NET - that didn't exist yet), JSP, and ColdFusion. Mentions of MVC at this point, in the context of Web development, would just earn you some blank stares; at best, some particularly advanced Java devs would be aware of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model\_2" title="wikipedia.org">"model 2"</a> [wikipedia.org], handcoded via servlets and JSPs...</p><p>ColdFusion was both getting dated, and cost $$$. The latter bit especially meant that it was right out for many.</p><p>ASP was really simplistic, with VBScript as a primary language (and that was much more primitive than PHP), no decent IDEs, and not exactly fast either; also, while it was kinda free itself, you needed IIS to run it, and that (in 2000, remember?) came with Win2K, which not everyone in the "casual newbie developer" group had or even wanted to have, and which was more expensive than 9x/ME (meanwhile, Apache ran on 9x).</p><p>JSP itself was okay in this context, but it had two problems compared to PHP. First of all, Java is still a rather verbose language, and that complexity showed when you don't have anything like modern frameworks mapping requests to beans etc. At that point, you had to work with raw request parameters (strings!), query database in raw SQL, and output plain text data (strings!) - and while you can do that all in Java, the corresponding PHP code was usually much shorter. As well, no-one in PHP land cared about the theoretical advantages of database decoupling that JDBC gave you, because they (we, really; I was doing it at that time as well) just hardcoded mysql\_* calls, because that's all that was expected to be supported in the foreseeable future.</p><p>The other problem JSP had was setting it all up. Today, you can just download Netbeans and get it all out of the box configured properly; back then, it usually involved getting JDK first, then downloading and configuring Tomcat (not for the faint of heart, too). I don't recall seeing any all-in-one, one-click setup bundles like there were for PHP.</p><p>And documentation. Oh yes, that still persists as a myth that "PHP has the bestest docs" (witness various fanboi replies in this thread). It hasn't been true for a few years at least, but back then it definitely was. The big deal was that PHP manual somewhat tutorial-like - something you could read without having any clue as to how it all works, and get the general idea along with the minimum of details that you actually need to get it all working. Meanwhile for JSP, you had JavaDocs for all classes involved - which are nigh useless if you don't have the large picture already - and very few tutorials and other introductory materials, and even those you usually had to get from third parties. ASP was the toughest of all - no offline docs (unless you had MSDN, which was... ahem... not exactly cheap), and so-so online library. In the age when dial-up connectivity was still prevalent, this was a big deal.</p><p>So, in short - <em>back in the day</em> PHP was pretty good in some ways, and on the whole, soundly beat its competitors. Its domination that we see today is mostly a shadow of its past glory, and has little substance to it, at least with regard to any technical superiority.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when it was the script kiddie 's substitute for cgi-perl .
What does it offer from a theoretical and engineering PoV , apart from a Visual Basic learning curve ? Market penetration .
From managerial perspective , you can hire PHP developers a dime a dozen , and replace them very quickly if needed .
From developer perspective , you can grab any of those " PHP in 10 nanoseconds for complete idiots " books , an Apache + PHP + MySQL bundle installer for Windows , and learn it in a few days to the level sufficient to be hired.Of course , the typical quality of a PHP solution is what you 'd expect from such approach , but when did it ever stop anyone ? If you mean technological advantages , than there are none whatsoever .
As a language , PHP today is essentially Java with weak typing , no proper packages , namespaces just being introduced ( so no existing library uses them ) , and some very questionable language design decisions ( like $ a [ 1 ] is the same element as $ a [ " 1 " ] , but $ a [ " 01 " ] is distinct ) .From library perspective , the coverage is okay - about what you 'd expect from a decent modern platform - but API design is essentially random and inconsistent with no common guidelines followed , and things such as Unicode support are usually an afterthought.In short , there 's nothing there over Python or Ruby , or even Groovy or Boo.As to why it ended up in the spot it is in ?
Well , it 's actually fairly obvious when you look at the history .
PHP version 4 , the point at which its popularity skyrocketed , was released in 2000 .
At that point the established frameworks were ASP ( not ASP.NET - that did n't exist yet ) , JSP , and ColdFusion .
Mentions of MVC at this point , in the context of Web development , would just earn you some blank stares ; at best , some particularly advanced Java devs would be aware of " model 2 " [ wikipedia.org ] , handcoded via servlets and JSPs...ColdFusion was both getting dated , and cost $ $ $ .
The latter bit especially meant that it was right out for many.ASP was really simplistic , with VBScript as a primary language ( and that was much more primitive than PHP ) , no decent IDEs , and not exactly fast either ; also , while it was kinda free itself , you needed IIS to run it , and that ( in 2000 , remember ?
) came with Win2K , which not everyone in the " casual newbie developer " group had or even wanted to have , and which was more expensive than 9x/ME ( meanwhile , Apache ran on 9x ) .JSP itself was okay in this context , but it had two problems compared to PHP .
First of all , Java is still a rather verbose language , and that complexity showed when you do n't have anything like modern frameworks mapping requests to beans etc .
At that point , you had to work with raw request parameters ( strings !
) , query database in raw SQL , and output plain text data ( strings !
) - and while you can do that all in Java , the corresponding PHP code was usually much shorter .
As well , no-one in PHP land cared about the theoretical advantages of database decoupling that JDBC gave you , because they ( we , really ; I was doing it at that time as well ) just hardcoded mysql \ _ * calls , because that 's all that was expected to be supported in the foreseeable future.The other problem JSP had was setting it all up .
Today , you can just download Netbeans and get it all out of the box configured properly ; back then , it usually involved getting JDK first , then downloading and configuring Tomcat ( not for the faint of heart , too ) .
I do n't recall seeing any all-in-one , one-click setup bundles like there were for PHP.And documentation .
Oh yes , that still persists as a myth that " PHP has the bestest docs " ( witness various fanboi replies in this thread ) .
It has n't been true for a few years at least , but back then it definitely was .
The big deal was that PHP manual somewhat tutorial-like - something you could read without having any clue as to how it all works , and get the general idea along with the minimum of details that you actually need to get it all working .
Meanwhile for JSP , you had JavaDocs for all classes involved - which are nigh useless if you do n't have the large picture already - and very few tutorials and other introductory materials , and even those you usually had to get from third parties .
ASP was the toughest of all - no offline docs ( unless you had MSDN , which was... ahem... not exactly cheap ) , and so-so online library .
In the age when dial-up connectivity was still prevalent , this was a big deal.So , in short - back in the day PHP was pretty good in some ways , and on the whole , soundly beat its competitors .
Its domination that we see today is mostly a shadow of its past glory , and has little substance to it , at least with regard to any technical superiority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when it was the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl.
What does it offer from a theoretical and engineering PoV, apart from a Visual Basic learning curve?Market penetration.
From managerial perspective, you can hire PHP developers a dime a dozen, and replace them very quickly if needed.
From developer perspective, you can grab any of those "PHP in 10 nanoseconds for complete idiots" books, an Apache+PHP+MySQL bundle installer for Windows, and learn it in a few days to the level sufficient to be hired.Of course, the typical quality of a PHP solution is what you'd expect from such approach, but when did it ever stop anyone?If you mean technological advantages, than there are none whatsoever.
As a language, PHP today is essentially Java with weak typing, no proper packages, namespaces just being introduced (so no existing library uses them), and some very questionable language design decisions (like $a[1] is the same element as $a["1"], but $a["01"] is distinct).From library perspective, the coverage is okay - about what you'd expect from a decent modern platform - but API design is essentially random and inconsistent with no common guidelines followed, and things such as Unicode support are usually an afterthought.In short, there's nothing there over Python or Ruby, or even Groovy or Boo.As to why it ended up in the spot it is in?
Well, it's actually fairly obvious when you look at the history.
PHP version 4, the point at which its popularity skyrocketed, was released in 2000.
At that point the established frameworks were ASP (not ASP.NET - that didn't exist yet), JSP, and ColdFusion.
Mentions of MVC at this point, in the context of Web development, would just earn you some blank stares; at best, some particularly advanced Java devs would be aware of "model 2" [wikipedia.org], handcoded via servlets and JSPs...ColdFusion was both getting dated, and cost $$$.
The latter bit especially meant that it was right out for many.ASP was really simplistic, with VBScript as a primary language (and that was much more primitive than PHP), no decent IDEs, and not exactly fast either; also, while it was kinda free itself, you needed IIS to run it, and that (in 2000, remember?
) came with Win2K, which not everyone in the "casual newbie developer" group had or even wanted to have, and which was more expensive than 9x/ME (meanwhile, Apache ran on 9x).JSP itself was okay in this context, but it had two problems compared to PHP.
First of all, Java is still a rather verbose language, and that complexity showed when you don't have anything like modern frameworks mapping requests to beans etc.
At that point, you had to work with raw request parameters (strings!
), query database in raw SQL, and output plain text data (strings!
) - and while you can do that all in Java, the corresponding PHP code was usually much shorter.
As well, no-one in PHP land cared about the theoretical advantages of database decoupling that JDBC gave you, because they (we, really; I was doing it at that time as well) just hardcoded mysql\_* calls, because that's all that was expected to be supported in the foreseeable future.The other problem JSP had was setting it all up.
Today, you can just download Netbeans and get it all out of the box configured properly; back then, it usually involved getting JDK first, then downloading and configuring Tomcat (not for the faint of heart, too).
I don't recall seeing any all-in-one, one-click setup bundles like there were for PHP.And documentation.
Oh yes, that still persists as a myth that "PHP has the bestest docs" (witness various fanboi replies in this thread).
It hasn't been true for a few years at least, but back then it definitely was.
The big deal was that PHP manual somewhat tutorial-like - something you could read without having any clue as to how it all works, and get the general idea along with the minimum of details that you actually need to get it all working.
Meanwhile for JSP, you had JavaDocs for all classes involved - which are nigh useless if you don't have the large picture already - and very few tutorials and other introductory materials, and even those you usually had to get from third parties.
ASP was the toughest of all - no offline docs (unless you had MSDN, which was... ahem... not exactly cheap), and so-so online library.
In the age when dial-up connectivity was still prevalent, this was a big deal.So, in short - back in the day PHP was pretty good in some ways, and on the whole, soundly beat its competitors.
Its domination that we see today is mostly a shadow of its past glory, and has little substance to it, at least with regard to any technical superiority.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506748</id>
	<title>Bad Math</title>
	<author>Flwyd</author>
	<datestamp>1261305180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... assuming CPU cycles are the key bottleneck and not, say, network communication and data access.  I'd assume they look at performance pinch points and optimize those.  So if the 10\% most computationally-intensive code is written in C++ or Java, the savings in rewriting the rest in C++ might be 15\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... assuming CPU cycles are the key bottleneck and not , say , network communication and data access .
I 'd assume they look at performance pinch points and optimize those .
So if the 10 \ % most computationally-intensive code is written in C + + or Java , the savings in rewriting the rest in C + + might be 15 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... assuming CPU cycles are the key bottleneck and not, say, network communication and data access.
I'd assume they look at performance pinch points and optimize those.
So if the 10\% most computationally-intensive code is written in C++ or Java, the savings in rewriting the rest in C++ might be 15\%.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504894</id>
	<title>TFA is full of crap</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1261332780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody takes into consideration the serious environmental impact of C++ over PHP when it comes to designing, implementing and debugging applications, which take much more time and stress people more. They eat more, they shit more, they breath faster, they need to spend more time working and most of them don't live close enough to the office to walk so they either drive or use public transportation. It takes a lot longer to learn C++ than PHP, therefore the developers will be wasting a lot of time without actually producing anything. Why would PHP be 10 times slower than C++ on the web, when most of the work is done by the [most likely written in C] database engine?</p><p>In short: TFA is comparing apples to oranges and says that oranges have 10 times more juice than apples after particularly squeezing that exact amount from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody takes into consideration the serious environmental impact of C + + over PHP when it comes to designing , implementing and debugging applications , which take much more time and stress people more .
They eat more , they shit more , they breath faster , they need to spend more time working and most of them do n't live close enough to the office to walk so they either drive or use public transportation .
It takes a lot longer to learn C + + than PHP , therefore the developers will be wasting a lot of time without actually producing anything .
Why would PHP be 10 times slower than C + + on the web , when most of the work is done by the [ most likely written in C ] database engine ? In short : TFA is comparing apples to oranges and says that oranges have 10 times more juice than apples after particularly squeezing that exact amount from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody takes into consideration the serious environmental impact of C++ over PHP when it comes to designing, implementing and debugging applications, which take much more time and stress people more.
They eat more, they shit more, they breath faster, they need to spend more time working and most of them don't live close enough to the office to walk so they either drive or use public transportation.
It takes a lot longer to learn C++ than PHP, therefore the developers will be wasting a lot of time without actually producing anything.
Why would PHP be 10 times slower than C++ on the web, when most of the work is done by the [most likely written in C] database engine?In short: TFA is comparing apples to oranges and says that oranges have 10 times more juice than apples after particularly squeezing that exact amount from them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506462</id>
	<title>Six things this story didn't say</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261302360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>- Server farms take up maybe 0.5-2\% of the world's energy.  If we're going to stop global warming, we should focus on power plants, cars, and the most energy-hungry industrial processes.  McKinsey said 0.5\% of the world's energy a year ago, and 1\% is cited in some random press release at the top of a Google search.</p><p>- As data center usage grows, other factors will push down energy use per clock cycle: faster and more power-efficient processors (as we move to 32nm fabs, chips that power down idle cores, etc.) and more energy-efficient server farm designs (using weather for cooling, powering some boxes down at night, etc.).  The gap between interpreted and compiled will narrow.</p><p>- It's hard to pin down how many server-hours C++ would actually save.  PHP might be spending most of its time running code from C libraries (memcached lookups, HTML/XML parsing, regexp evaluations) instead of interpreting PHP.  The article doesn't say what portion of the servers are running PHP, and the 10 to 1 efficiency ratio is pulled out of thin air.  The server farm might be I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound, and if it's not, it's quite possible that it would *become* I/O-bound if you rewrote everything in C++, preventing any 10-to-1 savings.</p><p>- In capitalism, the amount of energy that will be saved depends directly on how cheap it is to save energy, and there are far more cost-efficient approaches than rewriting everything in C++.  Improve the PHP code.  Rewrite bottlenecks in Java or C++.  Improve the PHP interpreter!  Look above the code level to more efficient server/datacenter designs.  It doesn't help to suggest cost-inefficient approaches like rewriting tons of code in another language or, for that matter, working with the lights off.</p><p>- What applies to Facebook doesn't apply to you and me.  For small to medium sites, the environmental cost of the development effort dwarfs the impact of the servers.  That is, ignoring all non-environmental factors like developer salaries, time to market, ease of innovation, etc., spending extra months developing my tiny site in C++ instead of Python or Perl or PHP is just going to use more energy for the development resources than the extra energy the servers use to interpret my code.</p><p>- Even for Facebook, C++ has its own environmental costs.  Instead of a bigger server park, you need a bigger office park and more employees driving to work.  My energy-saving suggestion for Facebook in its current PHP-driven incarnation: get more employees working from home!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Server farms take up maybe 0.5-2 \ % of the world 's energy .
If we 're going to stop global warming , we should focus on power plants , cars , and the most energy-hungry industrial processes .
McKinsey said 0.5 \ % of the world 's energy a year ago , and 1 \ % is cited in some random press release at the top of a Google search.- As data center usage grows , other factors will push down energy use per clock cycle : faster and more power-efficient processors ( as we move to 32nm fabs , chips that power down idle cores , etc .
) and more energy-efficient server farm designs ( using weather for cooling , powering some boxes down at night , etc. ) .
The gap between interpreted and compiled will narrow.- It 's hard to pin down how many server-hours C + + would actually save .
PHP might be spending most of its time running code from C libraries ( memcached lookups , HTML/XML parsing , regexp evaluations ) instead of interpreting PHP .
The article does n't say what portion of the servers are running PHP , and the 10 to 1 efficiency ratio is pulled out of thin air .
The server farm might be I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound , and if it 's not , it 's quite possible that it would * become * I/O-bound if you rewrote everything in C + + , preventing any 10-to-1 savings.- In capitalism , the amount of energy that will be saved depends directly on how cheap it is to save energy , and there are far more cost-efficient approaches than rewriting everything in C + + .
Improve the PHP code .
Rewrite bottlenecks in Java or C + + .
Improve the PHP interpreter !
Look above the code level to more efficient server/datacenter designs .
It does n't help to suggest cost-inefficient approaches like rewriting tons of code in another language or , for that matter , working with the lights off.- What applies to Facebook does n't apply to you and me .
For small to medium sites , the environmental cost of the development effort dwarfs the impact of the servers .
That is , ignoring all non-environmental factors like developer salaries , time to market , ease of innovation , etc. , spending extra months developing my tiny site in C + + instead of Python or Perl or PHP is just going to use more energy for the development resources than the extra energy the servers use to interpret my code.- Even for Facebook , C + + has its own environmental costs .
Instead of a bigger server park , you need a bigger office park and more employees driving to work .
My energy-saving suggestion for Facebook in its current PHP-driven incarnation : get more employees working from home !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Server farms take up maybe 0.5-2\% of the world's energy.
If we're going to stop global warming, we should focus on power plants, cars, and the most energy-hungry industrial processes.
McKinsey said 0.5\% of the world's energy a year ago, and 1\% is cited in some random press release at the top of a Google search.- As data center usage grows, other factors will push down energy use per clock cycle: faster and more power-efficient processors (as we move to 32nm fabs, chips that power down idle cores, etc.
) and more energy-efficient server farm designs (using weather for cooling, powering some boxes down at night, etc.).
The gap between interpreted and compiled will narrow.- It's hard to pin down how many server-hours C++ would actually save.
PHP might be spending most of its time running code from C libraries (memcached lookups, HTML/XML parsing, regexp evaluations) instead of interpreting PHP.
The article doesn't say what portion of the servers are running PHP, and the 10 to 1 efficiency ratio is pulled out of thin air.
The server farm might be I/O-bound instead of CPU-bound, and if it's not, it's quite possible that it would *become* I/O-bound if you rewrote everything in C++, preventing any 10-to-1 savings.- In capitalism, the amount of energy that will be saved depends directly on how cheap it is to save energy, and there are far more cost-efficient approaches than rewriting everything in C++.
Improve the PHP code.
Rewrite bottlenecks in Java or C++.
Improve the PHP interpreter!
Look above the code level to more efficient server/datacenter designs.
It doesn't help to suggest cost-inefficient approaches like rewriting tons of code in another language or, for that matter, working with the lights off.- What applies to Facebook doesn't apply to you and me.
For small to medium sites, the environmental cost of the development effort dwarfs the impact of the servers.
That is, ignoring all non-environmental factors like developer salaries, time to market, ease of innovation, etc., spending extra months developing my tiny site in C++ instead of Python or Perl or PHP is just going to use more energy for the development resources than the extra energy the servers use to interpret my code.- Even for Facebook, C++ has its own environmental costs.
Instead of a bigger server park, you need a bigger office park and more employees driving to work.
My energy-saving suggestion for Facebook in its current PHP-driven incarnation: get more employees working from home!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510206</id>
	<title>paint it black?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261392000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aren't they going to have more eco-friendly results with a black (instead of white) background on the html pages they produce?<br>that's 5 minutes of work and a zillion pixels on client screens that don't light up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are n't they going to have more eco-friendly results with a black ( instead of white ) background on the html pages they produce ? that 's 5 minutes of work and a zillion pixels on client screens that do n't light up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aren't they going to have more eco-friendly results with a black (instead of white) background on the html pages they produce?that's 5 minutes of work and a zillion pixels on client screens that don't light up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504510</id>
	<title>what about production/maintenance costs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>developing web applications in c is not exactly a walk in the park. neither c was designed to build web applications, or maintain them. whereas you can easily go through php code to develop new functions and improve new and existing functions efficiency speedily and economically, it wont be the sam with c. what about those costs ?</p><p>looking at the instantaneous state of the server/php/performance situation is as stupid as just looking at the instantaneous state of a mass production factory and declaring that certain assembly lines are not efficient or green. there are a lot many factors and costs to count into in the bigger picture.</p><p>a half assed approach, which, somehow, brings the word 'green' into the mix - maybe to garner some attention, since it is the issue these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>developing web applications in c is not exactly a walk in the park .
neither c was designed to build web applications , or maintain them .
whereas you can easily go through php code to develop new functions and improve new and existing functions efficiency speedily and economically , it wont be the sam with c. what about those costs ? looking at the instantaneous state of the server/php/performance situation is as stupid as just looking at the instantaneous state of a mass production factory and declaring that certain assembly lines are not efficient or green .
there are a lot many factors and costs to count into in the bigger picture.a half assed approach , which , somehow , brings the word 'green ' into the mix - maybe to garner some attention , since it is the issue these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>developing web applications in c is not exactly a walk in the park.
neither c was designed to build web applications, or maintain them.
whereas you can easily go through php code to develop new functions and improve new and existing functions efficiency speedily and economically, it wont be the sam with c. what about those costs ?looking at the instantaneous state of the server/php/performance situation is as stupid as just looking at the instantaneous state of a mass production factory and declaring that certain assembly lines are not efficient or green.
there are a lot many factors and costs to count into in the bigger picture.a half assed approach, which, somehow, brings the word 'green' into the mix - maybe to garner some attention, since it is the issue these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504972</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>Stele</author>
	<datestamp>1261333380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you should learn the language first. It seems there are an awful lot of people who love to comment on the complexity and performance of C++, who never bothered to really learn the language. Yet this doesn't stop them from pretending the be experts on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should learn the language first .
It seems there are an awful lot of people who love to comment on the complexity and performance of C + + , who never bothered to really learn the language .
Yet this does n't stop them from pretending the be experts on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should learn the language first.
It seems there are an awful lot of people who love to comment on the complexity and performance of C++, who never bothered to really learn the language.
Yet this doesn't stop them from pretending the be experts on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508864</id>
	<title>Distraught about PHP</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1261328760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm distraught about PHP and its efficiency.  Unless you do some kind of guru magic, every click on your server is interpreting not only the screen you're visiting but all the libraries it requires to load itself.  The computers spend nearly all of their time interpreting the same code over and over for each click.  The analysis is sound and points out the fallacy of using interpretive languages in ways they aren't intended to be used.  On the bright side, at least they aren't using Perl under CGI.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm distraught about PHP and its efficiency .
Unless you do some kind of guru magic , every click on your server is interpreting not only the screen you 're visiting but all the libraries it requires to load itself .
The computers spend nearly all of their time interpreting the same code over and over for each click .
The analysis is sound and points out the fallacy of using interpretive languages in ways they are n't intended to be used .
On the bright side , at least they are n't using Perl under CGI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm distraught about PHP and its efficiency.
Unless you do some kind of guru magic, every click on your server is interpreting not only the screen you're visiting but all the libraries it requires to load itself.
The computers spend nearly all of their time interpreting the same code over and over for each click.
The analysis is sound and points out the fallacy of using interpretive languages in ways they aren't intended to be used.
On the bright side, at least they aren't using Perl under CGI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505002</id>
	<title>Maybe reduce MHz/#CPU, not server count</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1261333680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the goal is energy conservation, the server count might be not be reduceable -- # required for memory, network ports, disk seekers, or other things.</p><p>However, it is \_certainly\_ possible to reduce power and cooling requirements somewhat with less inefficient code.  So you can install slower/lowerV/lowerW CPUs, or fewer cores (unless you are already at min).  Or at least the CPUs spend more time in powersavings states.</p><p>The power reduction may not be all that great, ~20W per server, but over 25,000 , that is still 5 MW -- 4.4 M$/yr</p><p>Beware of false economies -- LoC does not matter if those lines are rarely executed.  What runs often matters.  What doesn't might not be worth the power investment of compilation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the goal is energy conservation , the server count might be not be reduceable -- # required for memory , network ports , disk seekers , or other things.However , it is \ _certainly \ _ possible to reduce power and cooling requirements somewhat with less inefficient code .
So you can install slower/lowerV/lowerW CPUs , or fewer cores ( unless you are already at min ) .
Or at least the CPUs spend more time in powersavings states.The power reduction may not be all that great , ~ 20W per server , but over 25,000 , that is still 5 MW -- 4.4 M $ /yrBeware of false economies -- LoC does not matter if those lines are rarely executed .
What runs often matters .
What does n't might not be worth the power investment of compilation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the goal is energy conservation, the server count might be not be reduceable -- # required for memory, network ports, disk seekers, or other things.However, it is \_certainly\_ possible to reduce power and cooling requirements somewhat with less inefficient code.
So you can install slower/lowerV/lowerW CPUs, or fewer cores (unless you are already at min).
Or at least the CPUs spend more time in powersavings states.The power reduction may not be all that great, ~20W per server, but over 25,000 , that is still 5 MW -- 4.4 M$/yrBeware of false economies -- LoC does not matter if those lines are rarely executed.
What runs often matters.
What doesn't might not be worth the power investment of compilation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504274</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516098</id>
	<title>Re:A C app would be much faster</title>
	<author>Fished</author>
	<datestamp>1261386480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're absolutely right.  IF companies could identify, employ, and retain alpha-level coders for their entire development force.  They can't.  The reality is that unless you're one of the alpha geeks (say in the 90th percentile or better) dynamic languages are better than C, C++, etc.  This may change though as we see massive deployments of applications at company expense and data center power costs become a huge issue.  For example, Google finds it worthwhile to retain really brilliant developers and seems to be using more C/C++ as times goes on (although they still use plenty of Python.)  Personally, I think *some* functional language is going to be the next big thing--and those who can make useful web apps in such a language will be in huge demand.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right .
IF companies could identify , employ , and retain alpha-level coders for their entire development force .
They ca n't .
The reality is that unless you 're one of the alpha geeks ( say in the 90th percentile or better ) dynamic languages are better than C , C + + , etc .
This may change though as we see massive deployments of applications at company expense and data center power costs become a huge issue .
For example , Google finds it worthwhile to retain really brilliant developers and seems to be using more C/C + + as times goes on ( although they still use plenty of Python .
) Personally , I think * some * functional language is going to be the next big thing--and those who can make useful web apps in such a language will be in huge demand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right.
IF companies could identify, employ, and retain alpha-level coders for their entire development force.
They can't.
The reality is that unless you're one of the alpha geeks (say in the 90th percentile or better) dynamic languages are better than C, C++, etc.
This may change though as we see massive deployments of applications at company expense and data center power costs become a huge issue.
For example, Google finds it worthwhile to retain really brilliant developers and seems to be using more C/C++ as times goes on (although they still use plenty of Python.
)  Personally, I think *some* functional language is going to be the next big thing--and those who can make useful web apps in such a language will be in huge demand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504668</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506088</id>
	<title>Re:Author needs a clue about metrics</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1261342500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're moving our infrastructure over to Perl from PHP.  When we did testing we found that pages on our sites tended to load in about the same amount of time as it was the Database query and then front-end CSS/JS that took the bulk of the time to load a page, not the script execution time.  (We're moving to Perl because there is no PHP connector other than ODBC for the database we'll be moving to and Perl has 2 DBI modules).  Plus every time we wanted to do something/add a feature/add an external API, we found there was already a Perl Module for that...</p><p>In my experience in the past 10 years, it's usually been the database that has often been the bottle neck.  Seems like any time the traffic was too much with Perl or PHP, adding more hardware with a load balancer always worked until you started to overloaded the database.  (Which usually happened first anyway).  AND THAT is where you started spending the $$$$.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're moving our infrastructure over to Perl from PHP .
When we did testing we found that pages on our sites tended to load in about the same amount of time as it was the Database query and then front-end CSS/JS that took the bulk of the time to load a page , not the script execution time .
( We 're moving to Perl because there is no PHP connector other than ODBC for the database we 'll be moving to and Perl has 2 DBI modules ) .
Plus every time we wanted to do something/add a feature/add an external API , we found there was already a Perl Module for that...In my experience in the past 10 years , it 's usually been the database that has often been the bottle neck .
Seems like any time the traffic was too much with Perl or PHP , adding more hardware with a load balancer always worked until you started to overloaded the database .
( Which usually happened first anyway ) .
AND THAT is where you started spending the $ $ $ $ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're moving our infrastructure over to Perl from PHP.
When we did testing we found that pages on our sites tended to load in about the same amount of time as it was the Database query and then front-end CSS/JS that took the bulk of the time to load a page, not the script execution time.
(We're moving to Perl because there is no PHP connector other than ODBC for the database we'll be moving to and Perl has 2 DBI modules).
Plus every time we wanted to do something/add a feature/add an external API, we found there was already a Perl Module for that...In my experience in the past 10 years, it's usually been the database that has often been the bottle neck.
Seems like any time the traffic was too much with Perl or PHP, adding more hardware with a load balancer always worked until you started to overloaded the database.
(Which usually happened first anyway).
AND THAT is where you started spending the $$$$.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504596</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504702</id>
	<title>I'm so glad that you thought if this</title>
	<author>fridaynightsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1261331400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and Facebook didn't. Facebook has no interest whatsoever in minimising their power usage (electricity is free, you see) and like all corporations they never look for ways of minimising their costs. There are no possible reasons why FB may operate their servers in this way.</p><p>It reminds me of when certain people start raging about the fact that "x\% of trucks on the road are EMPTY!!". Yeah, because the big trucking firms apparently don't have rooms full of people whose job it is to make sure that the trucks are as full as possible, because trucks, diesel and drivers are free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and Facebook did n't .
Facebook has no interest whatsoever in minimising their power usage ( electricity is free , you see ) and like all corporations they never look for ways of minimising their costs .
There are no possible reasons why FB may operate their servers in this way.It reminds me of when certain people start raging about the fact that " x \ % of trucks on the road are EMPTY ! ! " .
Yeah , because the big trucking firms apparently do n't have rooms full of people whose job it is to make sure that the trucks are as full as possible , because trucks , diesel and drivers are free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and Facebook didn't.
Facebook has no interest whatsoever in minimising their power usage (electricity is free, you see) and like all corporations they never look for ways of minimising their costs.
There are no possible reasons why FB may operate their servers in this way.It reminds me of when certain people start raging about the fact that "x\% of trucks on the road are EMPTY!!".
Yeah, because the big trucking firms apparently don't have rooms full of people whose job it is to make sure that the trucks are as full as possible, because trucks, diesel and drivers are free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509380</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261334700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These days it's really quite difficult to hand code assembly that's more efficient than compiled, optimized C++ code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These days it 's really quite difficult to hand code assembly that 's more efficient than compiled , optimized C + + code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These days it's really quite difficult to hand code assembly that's more efficient than compiled, optimized C++ code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506324</id>
	<title>Re:He's not wrong.... But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261301160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Seriously, years ago I started working on a c++ version of j2ee "</p><p>There's always  opensrf, that does something, and as far as I know, more than j2ee it that works with both c, perl and python (java is not yet implemented). See</p><p>http://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=osrf-devel:benefits\_of\_opensrf\_over\_other\_application\_frameworks</p><p>also, afaik, it's quite stable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Seriously , years ago I started working on a c + + version of j2ee " There 's always opensrf , that does something , and as far as I know , more than j2ee it that works with both c , perl and python ( java is not yet implemented ) .
Seehttp : //open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php ? id = osrf-devel : benefits \ _of \ _opensrf \ _over \ _other \ _application \ _frameworksalso , afaik , it 's quite stable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Seriously, years ago I started working on a c++ version of j2ee "There's always  opensrf, that does something, and as far as I know, more than j2ee it that works with both c, perl and python (java is not yet implemented).
Seehttp://open-ils.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=osrf-devel:benefits\_of\_opensrf\_over\_other\_application\_frameworksalso, afaik, it's quite stable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505544</id>
	<title>True History</title>
	<author>Nomen Publicus</author>
	<datestamp>1261338420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Prototype PHP code written and tested in an afternoon.<br>2. Business case written in an afternoon (forgetting to include the profit generating point.)<br>3. Vulture Capitalist drinks too much at lunchtime pitch and agrees to provide $BIGNUM<br>4. Development of real codebase begins.<br>5. Vulture Capitalist sobers up and demands that the new service starts NOW!<br>6. Prototype code goes into production.<br>7. Real codebase development abandoned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Prototype PHP code written and tested in an afternoon.2 .
Business case written in an afternoon ( forgetting to include the profit generating point. ) 3 .
Vulture Capitalist drinks too much at lunchtime pitch and agrees to provide $ BIGNUM4 .
Development of real codebase begins.5 .
Vulture Capitalist sobers up and demands that the new service starts NOW ! 6 .
Prototype code goes into production.7 .
Real codebase development abandoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Prototype PHP code written and tested in an afternoon.2.
Business case written in an afternoon (forgetting to include the profit generating point.)3.
Vulture Capitalist drinks too much at lunchtime pitch and agrees to provide $BIGNUM4.
Development of real codebase begins.5.
Vulture Capitalist sobers up and demands that the new service starts NOW!6.
Prototype code goes into production.7.
Real codebase development abandoned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505128</id>
	<title>Can I play?</title>
	<author>bieber</author>
	<datestamp>1261334640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why stop at 10?  Since we're pulling numbers out of the air anyways, why not take a conservative estimate of 100 for the ratio of PHP to C++ execution, so they could run the whole thing on just 250 servers!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why stop at 10 ?
Since we 're pulling numbers out of the air anyways , why not take a conservative estimate of 100 for the ratio of PHP to C + + execution , so they could run the whole thing on just 250 servers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why stop at 10?
Since we're pulling numbers out of the air anyways, why not take a conservative estimate of 100 for the ratio of PHP to C++ execution, so they could run the whole thing on just 250 servers!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504372</id>
	<title>F1 car in normal street.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1261329060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This don't make much sense. You can go to work in a F1 car, or your normal car. You in theory will go faster in the F1 car.</p><p>In real world, there are other "fasters". The normal car is "faster to buy" (cheaper), "faster to mantain" (cheaper to mantain), and lots others "faster" that make faster your normal car than your F1 car.<br>Facebook is probably one of the few sites that could have written part of it on fast C++ code. In a F1 race, you will use a F1 car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This do n't make much sense .
You can go to work in a F1 car , or your normal car .
You in theory will go faster in the F1 car.In real world , there are other " fasters " .
The normal car is " faster to buy " ( cheaper ) , " faster to mantain " ( cheaper to mantain ) , and lots others " faster " that make faster your normal car than your F1 car.Facebook is probably one of the few sites that could have written part of it on fast C + + code .
In a F1 race , you will use a F1 car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This don't make much sense.
You can go to work in a F1 car, or your normal car.
You in theory will go faster in the F1 car.In real world, there are other "fasters".
The normal car is "faster to buy" (cheaper), "faster to mantain" (cheaper to mantain), and lots others "faster" that make faster your normal car than your F1 car.Facebook is probably one of the few sites that could have written part of it on fast C++ code.
In a F1 race, you will use a F1 car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504232</id>
	<title>Would be a non-issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if there was a run-time compiler solution for PHP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if there was a run-time compiler solution for PHP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if there was a run-time compiler solution for PHP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504736</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>dbialac</author>
	<datestamp>1261331760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While working at a <a href="http://www.ameritrade.com/" title="ameritrade.com" rel="nofollow">major online brokerage</a> [ameritrade.com], I was tasked with comparing a basic "hello world" program written in 3 methods: Perl in CGI, Perl in a core-dumped executable (this was the 90s) and C++.  C++ of course won, but when you took the compile time away from Perl, the factor decreased from 8:1 to around 1.5:1.  I'm guessing you'd find that PHP behaves in much the same way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While working at a major online brokerage [ ameritrade.com ] , I was tasked with comparing a basic " hello world " program written in 3 methods : Perl in CGI , Perl in a core-dumped executable ( this was the 90s ) and C + + .
C + + of course won , but when you took the compile time away from Perl , the factor decreased from 8 : 1 to around 1.5 : 1 .
I 'm guessing you 'd find that PHP behaves in much the same way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While working at a major online brokerage [ameritrade.com], I was tasked with comparing a basic "hello world" program written in 3 methods: Perl in CGI, Perl in a core-dumped executable (this was the 90s) and C++.
C++ of course won, but when you took the compile time away from Perl, the factor decreased from 8:1 to around 1.5:1.
I'm guessing you'd find that PHP behaves in much the same way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509480</id>
	<title>Bad math</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh the joys of bad math.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh the joys of bad math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh the joys of bad math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</id>
	<title>Ridiculous</title>
	<author>SashaM</author>
	<datestamp>1261328220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a ridiculous way to analyze it. What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++? What about the impact of whole classes of C++ bugs that don't exist in C++ (and, perhaps, vice versa) with the downtime or security breaches resulting from them? Or a hundred other ways in which writing all that software in C++ would be different of which I can't think at the moment?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a ridiculous way to analyze it .
What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C + + ?
What about the impact of whole classes of C + + bugs that do n't exist in C + + ( and , perhaps , vice versa ) with the downtime or security breaches resulting from them ?
Or a hundred other ways in which writing all that software in C + + would be different of which I ca n't think at the moment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a ridiculous way to analyze it.
What about the environmental impact of the extra time required to write the same functionality in C++?
What about the impact of whole classes of C++ bugs that don't exist in C++ (and, perhaps, vice versa) with the downtime or security breaches resulting from them?
Or a hundred other ways in which writing all that software in C++ would be different of which I can't think at the moment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509596</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>El\_Muerte\_TDS</author>
	<datestamp>1261337940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assembly? please.</p><p>Rewrite everything with butterflies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assembly ?
please.Rewrite everything with butterflies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assembly?
please.Rewrite everything with butterflies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505418</id>
	<title>Re:Assuming...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wrote my web application in C, used the Linux file system as a simple database, and serve the pages over a home broadband (100 Kbytes/s) internet connection.<br>This was by far the fastest solution as it saved me from learning PHP. (you do need to watch the size of user input, but there are plenty of save string manipulation functions to choose from)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wrote my web application in C , used the Linux file system as a simple database , and serve the pages over a home broadband ( 100 Kbytes/s ) internet connection.This was by far the fastest solution as it saved me from learning PHP .
( you do need to watch the size of user input , but there are plenty of save string manipulation functions to choose from )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wrote my web application in C, used the Linux file system as a simple database, and serve the pages over a home broadband (100 Kbytes/s) internet connection.This was by far the fastest solution as it saved me from learning PHP.
(you do need to watch the size of user input, but there are plenty of save string manipulation functions to choose from)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505294</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1261335840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who has used more PHP than C++, I would still have to say PHP is pretty shit. It's an ugly language. I've seen loads of nice C++, PHP, Java, etc. and loads of awful examples.
<br> <br>
The biggest problem with PHP is that anyone can use it. That is also why a lot of PHP is messy, imo.
<br> <br>
I do hope PHP goes out of style and Python or Scala take its place. PERL is more or less dead but I'd rather see that come back than see PHP stick around.
<br> <br>
It was nice and easy to learn with and yes it's nice to knock out something quickly but once you start using other languages I think PHP really starts to lose its shine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who has used more PHP than C + + , I would still have to say PHP is pretty shit .
It 's an ugly language .
I 've seen loads of nice C + + , PHP , Java , etc .
and loads of awful examples .
The biggest problem with PHP is that anyone can use it .
That is also why a lot of PHP is messy , imo .
I do hope PHP goes out of style and Python or Scala take its place .
PERL is more or less dead but I 'd rather see that come back than see PHP stick around .
It was nice and easy to learn with and yes it 's nice to knock out something quickly but once you start using other languages I think PHP really starts to lose its shine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who has used more PHP than C++, I would still have to say PHP is pretty shit.
It's an ugly language.
I've seen loads of nice C++, PHP, Java, etc.
and loads of awful examples.
The biggest problem with PHP is that anyone can use it.
That is also why a lot of PHP is messy, imo.
I do hope PHP goes out of style and Python or Scala take its place.
PERL is more or less dead but I'd rather see that come back than see PHP stick around.
It was nice and easy to learn with and yes it's nice to knock out something quickly but once you start using other languages I think PHP really starts to lose its shine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30522612</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1261489380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. Most of the time is spent waiting on I/O anyway!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Most of the time is spent waiting on I/O anyway !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Most of the time is spent waiting on I/O anyway!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504560</id>
	<title>He's not wrong.... But...</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1261330380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, years ago I started working on a c++ version of j2ee (not just servlets, the whole kit) and i mean providing similar functions not identical methods of execution obviously. It wasnt terribly hard actually. But it all falls apart really quickly cause of several reasons:</p><p>1) platform architecture - the dependence here, even between different versions of the same distribution was a pain and essentially spelt the end of my work. So I was stuck with "do i make web apps c++ soruce, or shared library binaries?" to which there is only one real answer for portability - source.<br>2) its a systems langauge - dear god that makes it painful for so many reasons.</p><p>There are caveats to both those, but the reality is that php exists because it fulfils a need and it does it quite well. To compare the two (c++ and php) is a little ridiculous and ultimately this article just reeks of "please everyone advertise my c++ web tool kit for me!". Sure, facebook (and trillions of others) MIGHT move to c++ web tool kit, but find me a dev that knows how to code an app it, now find me 2, now find me 200 cause thats how many i'd need to write and maintain faceboot apps in c++.</p><p>Even taking the OP's assumtion c++ is 10 times more efficient at what php does and that you could actually code facebook in it as actually acurate and that php vs c++ is a one-to-one relationship for things like code maintenance, your still stuck with "how many API's am i going to have to re-write and how many php api's do i use that dont even exist in c++". Its ludicrous to assume that you could drop-in replace php with witty without ending up coding tonnes of c++ code just to do things that PHP already provided. Not to mention the zillions of little extensions that revolve around php to accelerate its web-abilities (memcached for example). The number of things that can be used along side php for web-related things and the number of api's in-built to php just mean witty is never even going to be viable as an alternative. Lets also not forget there are millions of people round the globe using php for web stuff - which ultimately leads to php being a good web language (i.e. security problems being found, optimizations, etc etc).</p><p>Of course, wouldn't facebook be using something like zend to compile php pages? I mean seriously, if the 25000 servers are running php and not running zend the waste here just in cost of servers would be unbelievable - shear idiocy on facebooks part (if it were true, and i'd very much doubt it) and I imagine zend would have almost given it away for free just so facebook could say "we got a x\% improvement using the zend compiler".</p><p>So, I wonder how many people are now learning about witty for the first time (which seems like the only real reason for the article to begin with). Better advertising than adwords!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , years ago I started working on a c + + version of j2ee ( not just servlets , the whole kit ) and i mean providing similar functions not identical methods of execution obviously .
It wasnt terribly hard actually .
But it all falls apart really quickly cause of several reasons : 1 ) platform architecture - the dependence here , even between different versions of the same distribution was a pain and essentially spelt the end of my work .
So I was stuck with " do i make web apps c + + soruce , or shared library binaries ?
" to which there is only one real answer for portability - source.2 ) its a systems langauge - dear god that makes it painful for so many reasons.There are caveats to both those , but the reality is that php exists because it fulfils a need and it does it quite well .
To compare the two ( c + + and php ) is a little ridiculous and ultimately this article just reeks of " please everyone advertise my c + + web tool kit for me ! " .
Sure , facebook ( and trillions of others ) MIGHT move to c + + web tool kit , but find me a dev that knows how to code an app it , now find me 2 , now find me 200 cause thats how many i 'd need to write and maintain faceboot apps in c + + .Even taking the OP 's assumtion c + + is 10 times more efficient at what php does and that you could actually code facebook in it as actually acurate and that php vs c + + is a one-to-one relationship for things like code maintenance , your still stuck with " how many API 's am i going to have to re-write and how many php api 's do i use that dont even exist in c + + " .
Its ludicrous to assume that you could drop-in replace php with witty without ending up coding tonnes of c + + code just to do things that PHP already provided .
Not to mention the zillions of little extensions that revolve around php to accelerate its web-abilities ( memcached for example ) .
The number of things that can be used along side php for web-related things and the number of api 's in-built to php just mean witty is never even going to be viable as an alternative .
Lets also not forget there are millions of people round the globe using php for web stuff - which ultimately leads to php being a good web language ( i.e .
security problems being found , optimizations , etc etc ) .Of course , would n't facebook be using something like zend to compile php pages ?
I mean seriously , if the 25000 servers are running php and not running zend the waste here just in cost of servers would be unbelievable - shear idiocy on facebooks part ( if it were true , and i 'd very much doubt it ) and I imagine zend would have almost given it away for free just so facebook could say " we got a x \ % improvement using the zend compiler " .So , I wonder how many people are now learning about witty for the first time ( which seems like the only real reason for the article to begin with ) .
Better advertising than adwords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, years ago I started working on a c++ version of j2ee (not just servlets, the whole kit) and i mean providing similar functions not identical methods of execution obviously.
It wasnt terribly hard actually.
But it all falls apart really quickly cause of several reasons:1) platform architecture - the dependence here, even between different versions of the same distribution was a pain and essentially spelt the end of my work.
So I was stuck with "do i make web apps c++ soruce, or shared library binaries?
" to which there is only one real answer for portability - source.2) its a systems langauge - dear god that makes it painful for so many reasons.There are caveats to both those, but the reality is that php exists because it fulfils a need and it does it quite well.
To compare the two (c++ and php) is a little ridiculous and ultimately this article just reeks of "please everyone advertise my c++ web tool kit for me!".
Sure, facebook (and trillions of others) MIGHT move to c++ web tool kit, but find me a dev that knows how to code an app it, now find me 2, now find me 200 cause thats how many i'd need to write and maintain faceboot apps in c++.Even taking the OP's assumtion c++ is 10 times more efficient at what php does and that you could actually code facebook in it as actually acurate and that php vs c++ is a one-to-one relationship for things like code maintenance, your still stuck with "how many API's am i going to have to re-write and how many php api's do i use that dont even exist in c++".
Its ludicrous to assume that you could drop-in replace php with witty without ending up coding tonnes of c++ code just to do things that PHP already provided.
Not to mention the zillions of little extensions that revolve around php to accelerate its web-abilities (memcached for example).
The number of things that can be used along side php for web-related things and the number of api's in-built to php just mean witty is never even going to be viable as an alternative.
Lets also not forget there are millions of people round the globe using php for web stuff - which ultimately leads to php being a good web language (i.e.
security problems being found, optimizations, etc etc).Of course, wouldn't facebook be using something like zend to compile php pages?
I mean seriously, if the 25000 servers are running php and not running zend the waste here just in cost of servers would be unbelievable - shear idiocy on facebooks part (if it were true, and i'd very much doubt it) and I imagine zend would have almost given it away for free just so facebook could say "we got a x\% improvement using the zend compiler".So, I wonder how many people are now learning about witty for the first time (which seems like the only real reason for the article to begin with).
Better advertising than adwords!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504506</id>
	<title>Re:Assumes PHP Dev Effort = C++ Dev Effort</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or the environmental impact of C++ developers?</p></div><p>Are you assuming that C++ developers don't live when they're not coding?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the environmental impact of C + + developers ? Are you assuming that C + + developers do n't live when they 're not coding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the environmental impact of C++ developers?Are you assuming that C++ developers don't live when they're not coding?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505394</id>
	<title>Without merit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its all data. The PHP code that mashes it together is a tiny fraction of the backend processing which manages the data store.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its all data .
The PHP code that mashes it together is a tiny fraction of the backend processing which manages the data store .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its all data.
The PHP code that mashes it together is a tiny fraction of the backend processing which manages the data store.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504584</id>
	<title>Take it further</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Code it in Asm, and you can get 100:1, so you can power down 29,700 machines...</p><p>Better yet, make ppl. post all their wall posts directly in binary code.  That way, you can destroy the code necessary to translate UTF-8 back-and-forth, the HTTP/MIME wrappers, and the SQL.  Imagine the amount of electricity saved!  You can market it as a brain-booster too, since now you have to think before you post on Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Code it in Asm , and you can get 100 : 1 , so you can power down 29,700 machines...Better yet , make ppl .
post all their wall posts directly in binary code .
That way , you can destroy the code necessary to translate UTF-8 back-and-forth , the HTTP/MIME wrappers , and the SQL .
Imagine the amount of electricity saved !
You can market it as a brain-booster too , since now you have to think before you post on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Code it in Asm, and you can get 100:1, so you can power down 29,700 machines...Better yet, make ppl.
post all their wall posts directly in binary code.
That way, you can destroy the code necessary to translate UTF-8 back-and-forth, the HTTP/MIME wrappers, and the SQL.
Imagine the amount of electricity saved!
You can market it as a brain-booster too, since now you have to think before you post on Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507992</id>
	<title>Wooden Carts</title>
	<author>jamesccostello</author>
	<datestamp>1261317960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like saying that we should use those medieval wooden carts to ship packages across the US.  PHP works in many places where cpp fails to deliver (no pun intended with relation to my previous statement).</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like saying that we should use those medieval wooden carts to ship packages across the US .
PHP works in many places where cpp fails to deliver ( no pun intended with relation to my previous statement ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like saying that we should use those medieval wooden carts to ship packages across the US.
PHP works in many places where cpp fails to deliver (no pun intended with relation to my previous statement).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505078</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, the agony . . .</title>
	<author>bdrewery</author>
	<datestamp>1261334340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On top of that, if anyone RTFA, they would see this was just an advertisement for his C++ web framework. Checkout that 'Hello World' app!</htmltext>
<tokenext>On top of that , if anyone RTFA , they would see this was just an advertisement for his C + + web framework .
Checkout that 'Hello World ' app !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On top of that, if anyone RTFA, they would see this was just an advertisement for his C++ web framework.
Checkout that 'Hello World' app!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506044</id>
	<title>Cheap shot</title>
	<author>tp\_xyzzy</author>
	<datestamp>1261342020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a sad day when programmers cannot think any other reason to use c++ than some crackpot global warming co2 theory that doesn't hold water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a sad day when programmers can not think any other reason to use c + + than some crackpot global warming co2 theory that does n't hold water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a sad day when programmers cannot think any other reason to use c++ than some crackpot global warming co2 theory that doesn't hold water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509270</id>
	<title>C++ is officially back in fashion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261333200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few years after processor designers ran face first into the power wall we're starting to see clearly the age of performance challenged anything goes abstraction absurdium has come and gone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few years after processor designers ran face first into the power wall we 're starting to see clearly the age of performance challenged anything goes abstraction absurdium has come and gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few years after processor designers ran face first into the power wall we're starting to see clearly the age of performance challenged anything goes abstraction absurdium has come and gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507778</id>
	<title>Re:Java vs PHP</title>
	<author>Phrogman</author>
	<datestamp>1261314960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well I am biased in that I *like* PHP, despite its flaws. However, speaking to the argument that Java might be a better choice, I did work on one project which we essentially completed in PHP as a first draft, and then the lead designer decided that PHP wouldn't be scalable enough (i.e. he decided he didn't like it, since he had no evidence to point to), and we rebuilt the whole thing in Java instead. PHP development time: 6 months, Java Reegineering: 2 years more.<br>The end result was efficient and made good use of Java's strengths, but I can't honestly say it was a superior product, and the additional development time spent on adapting it to Java could have been spent revising and improving the PHP version 4 times over.<br>PHP is quick to develop it, quick to make changes to, and good enough for many jobs. There is a reason why sites like Facebook are using it so heavily. Purist programmers may not like it for a variety of reasons that may be entirely justified, but in many cases PHP is the right tool for the job and that is what should really matter. Java is also an excellent tool, but I think the development time is greater in the end, and the results are not necessarily all that much better. It likely comes down to a matter of preference, as other languages like Python or Ruby would probably be just as useful in the end.</p><p>As an aside, why does the OP not mention that you can write your own extensions to PHP in C++. Wouldn't that be a better option where you see code that is running too slow: concentrate on only those bits where it might really have an effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I am biased in that I * like * PHP , despite its flaws .
However , speaking to the argument that Java might be a better choice , I did work on one project which we essentially completed in PHP as a first draft , and then the lead designer decided that PHP would n't be scalable enough ( i.e .
he decided he did n't like it , since he had no evidence to point to ) , and we rebuilt the whole thing in Java instead .
PHP development time : 6 months , Java Reegineering : 2 years more.The end result was efficient and made good use of Java 's strengths , but I ca n't honestly say it was a superior product , and the additional development time spent on adapting it to Java could have been spent revising and improving the PHP version 4 times over.PHP is quick to develop it , quick to make changes to , and good enough for many jobs .
There is a reason why sites like Facebook are using it so heavily .
Purist programmers may not like it for a variety of reasons that may be entirely justified , but in many cases PHP is the right tool for the job and that is what should really matter .
Java is also an excellent tool , but I think the development time is greater in the end , and the results are not necessarily all that much better .
It likely comes down to a matter of preference , as other languages like Python or Ruby would probably be just as useful in the end.As an aside , why does the OP not mention that you can write your own extensions to PHP in C + + .
Would n't that be a better option where you see code that is running too slow : concentrate on only those bits where it might really have an effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I am biased in that I *like* PHP, despite its flaws.
However, speaking to the argument that Java might be a better choice, I did work on one project which we essentially completed in PHP as a first draft, and then the lead designer decided that PHP wouldn't be scalable enough (i.e.
he decided he didn't like it, since he had no evidence to point to), and we rebuilt the whole thing in Java instead.
PHP development time: 6 months, Java Reegineering: 2 years more.The end result was efficient and made good use of Java's strengths, but I can't honestly say it was a superior product, and the additional development time spent on adapting it to Java could have been spent revising and improving the PHP version 4 times over.PHP is quick to develop it, quick to make changes to, and good enough for many jobs.
There is a reason why sites like Facebook are using it so heavily.
Purist programmers may not like it for a variety of reasons that may be entirely justified, but in many cases PHP is the right tool for the job and that is what should really matter.
Java is also an excellent tool, but I think the development time is greater in the end, and the results are not necessarily all that much better.
It likely comes down to a matter of preference, as other languages like Python or Ruby would probably be just as useful in the end.As an aside, why does the OP not mention that you can write your own extensions to PHP in C++.
Wouldn't that be a better option where you see code that is running too slow: concentrate on only those bits where it might really have an effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504486</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504950</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1261333260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MOV Ashley, Enemies<br>MOV Jill, Friends<br>DIV Enemies, Lies<br>ADD CurrentMusic<br>ADD FeelingGood<br>MOV Jill, Enemies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MOV Ashley , EnemiesMOV Jill , FriendsDIV Enemies , LiesADD CurrentMusicADD FeelingGoodMOV Jill , Enemies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOV Ashley, EnemiesMOV Jill, FriendsDIV Enemies, LiesADD CurrentMusicADD FeelingGoodMOV Jill, Enemies</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509306</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>aqk</author>
	<datestamp>1261333560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, BS!   <br>
<br>
You sound like one of those old Macintosh weenies.  (almost extinct now) <br>
Some things never die. I guess they have now morphed into Linux-Perl weenies.<br>
<br>
But seriously- why cannot a PHP (or Perl) compiler be built?
There are so many interpreters nowadays and very few compilers.  <br>
I used to code mainframe crap 30 years ago (Assembler, COBOL, FORTRAN etc)... and then people discovered real-time interpreters. But hey- cycles were cheap.
If the code could be compiled ONCE, instead of each time, it would save a lot of CPU cycles and by extension,   electrical power and heat.
  PHP compiler anyone?  Or even PERL?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , BS !
You sound like one of those old Macintosh weenies .
( almost extinct now ) Some things never die .
I guess they have now morphed into Linux-Perl weenies .
But seriously- why can not a PHP ( or Perl ) compiler be built ?
There are so many interpreters nowadays and very few compilers .
I used to code mainframe crap 30 years ago ( Assembler , COBOL , FORTRAN etc ) ... and then people discovered real-time interpreters .
But hey- cycles were cheap .
If the code could be compiled ONCE , instead of each time , it would save a lot of CPU cycles and by extension , electrical power and heat .
PHP compiler anyone ?
Or even PERL ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, BS!
You sound like one of those old Macintosh weenies.
(almost extinct now) 
Some things never die.
I guess they have now morphed into Linux-Perl weenies.
But seriously- why cannot a PHP (or Perl) compiler be built?
There are so many interpreters nowadays and very few compilers.
I used to code mainframe crap 30 years ago (Assembler, COBOL, FORTRAN etc)... and then people discovered real-time interpreters.
But hey- cycles were cheap.
If the code could be compiled ONCE, instead of each time, it would save a lot of CPU cycles and by extension,   electrical power and heat.
PHP compiler anyone?
Or even PERL?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504368</id>
	<title>Hidden cost</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the environmental impact of all the coke bottles required to power the C++ programmers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the environmental impact of all the coke bottles required to power the C + + programmers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the environmental impact of all the coke bottles required to power the C++ programmers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505018</id>
	<title>so where is the example of a company doing this?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1261333920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am curious about an example of a company that has really done this conversion, and what their savings was like. Where is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am curious about an example of a company that has really done this conversion , and what their savings was like .
Where is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am curious about an example of a company that has really done this conversion, and what their savings was like.
Where is it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504698</id>
	<title>Re:Even if PHP is running 10 times slower...</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261331340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP is a dynamically typed language like Perl or Python.  As such, in general it *cannot* be compiled to run as fast as code written in a statically typed language like C++. Look up the state of the art for JIT of dynamic languages some time.  Works pretty well on numeric calculations, on everything else not so much.</p><p>Now of course that may not make much of a difference if the environment concerned isn't really limited by the PHP execution speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP is a dynamically typed language like Perl or Python .
As such , in general it * can not * be compiled to run as fast as code written in a statically typed language like C + + .
Look up the state of the art for JIT of dynamic languages some time .
Works pretty well on numeric calculations , on everything else not so much.Now of course that may not make much of a difference if the environment concerned is n't really limited by the PHP execution speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP is a dynamically typed language like Perl or Python.
As such, in general it *cannot* be compiled to run as fast as code written in a statically typed language like C++.
Look up the state of the art for JIT of dynamic languages some time.
Works pretty well on numeric calculations, on everything else not so much.Now of course that may not make much of a difference if the environment concerned isn't really limited by the PHP execution speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504918</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C++ really is frustrating and difficult to work with, compared with modern languages that include less kitchen sink. Just an hour ago I again experienced the most vexing parse. I really hate that and it is proof of the horrible syntax of C++. They should have abandoned the C syntax. Linking to compiled C object files really is all compatibility you ever need.</p><p>With all that said I am not convinced that PHP is much easier to develop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + really is frustrating and difficult to work with , compared with modern languages that include less kitchen sink .
Just an hour ago I again experienced the most vexing parse .
I really hate that and it is proof of the horrible syntax of C + + .
They should have abandoned the C syntax .
Linking to compiled C object files really is all compatibility you ever need.With all that said I am not convinced that PHP is much easier to develop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ really is frustrating and difficult to work with, compared with modern languages that include less kitchen sink.
Just an hour ago I again experienced the most vexing parse.
I really hate that and it is proof of the horrible syntax of C++.
They should have abandoned the C syntax.
Linking to compiled C object files really is all compatibility you ever need.With all that said I am not convinced that PHP is much easier to develop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508656</id>
	<title>Re:Languages not for everyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261325820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am forced to work on the CEO's son-in-laws 3 million+ line VB5 programs.</p><p>Quit bitching about bad PHP.  You have no idea how good those 'crap' php programmers are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am forced to work on the CEO 's son-in-laws 3 million + line VB5 programs.Quit bitching about bad PHP .
You have no idea how good those 'crap ' php programmers are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am forced to work on the CEO's son-in-laws 3 million+ line VB5 programs.Quit bitching about bad PHP.
You have no idea how good those 'crap' php programmers are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506736</id>
	<title>Problem with C02 in data center?</title>
	<author>DeltaQH</author>
	<datestamp>1261305000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use a nuclear power station. Problem solved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use a nuclear power station .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use a nuclear power station.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504694</id>
	<title>Second article ignores the first article.</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1261331280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first article is actually rather good.  It focuses on what most of us suspect is the larger architectural challenge, the database,IO, and scaling components not originally designed for a much larger scale.  Lessons learned are avoiding joins, reducing IO requests, avoiding DBs for static data, etc.  PHP is mentioned as the presentation layer, and optimizations are architectural, not switching languages.  Criticisms of PHP are not ones of performance, but ones of maintainability, programming practices, and integrating with C++ code.</p><p>I can't read the second article because it's slashdotted, but the summary of it leads me to believe the author either completely ignored the first article, or didn't understand it at all.  I won't re-hash the "Where the fuck did 10:1 come from?" arguments everyone else is very correctly bringing up.  But I would like to point out that the author of the second article doesn't sound like he/she has a good grasp of what the first article says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first article is actually rather good .
It focuses on what most of us suspect is the larger architectural challenge , the database,IO , and scaling components not originally designed for a much larger scale .
Lessons learned are avoiding joins , reducing IO requests , avoiding DBs for static data , etc .
PHP is mentioned as the presentation layer , and optimizations are architectural , not switching languages .
Criticisms of PHP are not ones of performance , but ones of maintainability , programming practices , and integrating with C + + code.I ca n't read the second article because it 's slashdotted , but the summary of it leads me to believe the author either completely ignored the first article , or did n't understand it at all .
I wo n't re-hash the " Where the fuck did 10 : 1 come from ?
" arguments everyone else is very correctly bringing up .
But I would like to point out that the author of the second article does n't sound like he/she has a good grasp of what the first article says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first article is actually rather good.
It focuses on what most of us suspect is the larger architectural challenge, the database,IO, and scaling components not originally designed for a much larger scale.
Lessons learned are avoiding joins, reducing IO requests, avoiding DBs for static data, etc.
PHP is mentioned as the presentation layer, and optimizations are architectural, not switching languages.
Criticisms of PHP are not ones of performance, but ones of maintainability, programming practices, and integrating with C++ code.I can't read the second article because it's slashdotted, but the summary of it leads me to believe the author either completely ignored the first article, or didn't understand it at all.
I won't re-hash the "Where the fuck did 10:1 come from?
" arguments everyone else is very correctly bringing up.
But I would like to point out that the author of the second article doesn't sound like he/she has a good grasp of what the first article says.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504378</id>
	<title>Things Change, Efficiency Matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many many moons ago efficiency was everything.  The CPU was expensive, the developer was (relatively speaking) cheap.</p><p>Then Moore's law really started to kick in, and we needed a paradigm shift.  Developers were more expensive, and CPU cycles could be had on the cheap.  The mantra was "code it fast, and only worry about efficiency for the bottlenecks if at all".</p><p>Fast forward to almost 2010, and we have web applications deployed on a massive scale.  Guess efficiency matters again.  Not only from a pure cost standpoint but also from a moral argument to cut back on greenhouse gases.  Amazing that more people haven't seen this coming.  Especially given that web services are normally free to the consumer, the cost side of the equation clearly matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many many moons ago efficiency was everything .
The CPU was expensive , the developer was ( relatively speaking ) cheap.Then Moore 's law really started to kick in , and we needed a paradigm shift .
Developers were more expensive , and CPU cycles could be had on the cheap .
The mantra was " code it fast , and only worry about efficiency for the bottlenecks if at all " .Fast forward to almost 2010 , and we have web applications deployed on a massive scale .
Guess efficiency matters again .
Not only from a pure cost standpoint but also from a moral argument to cut back on greenhouse gases .
Amazing that more people have n't seen this coming .
Especially given that web services are normally free to the consumer , the cost side of the equation clearly matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many many moons ago efficiency was everything.
The CPU was expensive, the developer was (relatively speaking) cheap.Then Moore's law really started to kick in, and we needed a paradigm shift.
Developers were more expensive, and CPU cycles could be had on the cheap.
The mantra was "code it fast, and only worry about efficiency for the bottlenecks if at all".Fast forward to almost 2010, and we have web applications deployed on a massive scale.
Guess efficiency matters again.
Not only from a pure cost standpoint but also from a moral argument to cut back on greenhouse gases.
Amazing that more people haven't seen this coming.
Especially given that web services are normally free to the consumer, the cost side of the equation clearly matters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505994</id>
	<title>let it troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261341600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hi<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ,  next time you want to blow up a flamefest, do it better. Why just <em>assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code</em> ? Make it 1/100 , or 1/1000 ! so the trollpost will be at its trollest, and flames will be at their highest. 1/10 is for whimps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hi / .
, next time you want to blow up a flamefest , do it better .
Why just assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C + + versus PHP code ?
Make it 1/100 , or 1/1000 !
so the trollpost will be at its trollest , and flames will be at their highest .
1/10 is for whimps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hi /.
,  next time you want to blow up a flamefest, do it better.
Why just assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code ?
Make it 1/100 , or 1/1000 !
so the trollpost will be at its trollest, and flames will be at their highest.
1/10 is for whimps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506386</id>
	<title>This logic is crap</title>
	<author>Giant Electronic Bra</author>
	<datestamp>1261301700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would take a really serious amount of in-depth analysis of the server application to even approach knowing what the efficiency impact of using a compiled language vs an interpreter would be on any specific stack. Or even stacks in general. Plus we don't even know what it really means to be "using PHP". What is PHP doing? Is it processing templates, doing just some post or pre processing with some kind of XML pipeline in the middle, how is the PHP deployed, etc?</p><p>It is simply ridiculous to make any assertions and claim accuracy for them. I'm no PHP fan boy by a LONG shot, but I know from hard experience that often a higher level tool which is optimized for a particular job can get the job done quite a lot MORE efficiently than a lower level one that isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would take a really serious amount of in-depth analysis of the server application to even approach knowing what the efficiency impact of using a compiled language vs an interpreter would be on any specific stack .
Or even stacks in general .
Plus we do n't even know what it really means to be " using PHP " .
What is PHP doing ?
Is it processing templates , doing just some post or pre processing with some kind of XML pipeline in the middle , how is the PHP deployed , etc ? It is simply ridiculous to make any assertions and claim accuracy for them .
I 'm no PHP fan boy by a LONG shot , but I know from hard experience that often a higher level tool which is optimized for a particular job can get the job done quite a lot MORE efficiently than a lower level one that is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would take a really serious amount of in-depth analysis of the server application to even approach knowing what the efficiency impact of using a compiled language vs an interpreter would be on any specific stack.
Or even stacks in general.
Plus we don't even know what it really means to be "using PHP".
What is PHP doing?
Is it processing templates, doing just some post or pre processing with some kind of XML pipeline in the middle, how is the PHP deployed, etc?It is simply ridiculous to make any assertions and claim accuracy for them.
I'm no PHP fan boy by a LONG shot, but I know from hard experience that often a higher level tool which is optimized for a particular job can get the job done quite a lot MORE efficiently than a lower level one that isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224</id>
	<title>people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when it was the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl. What does it offer from a theoretical and engineering PoV, apart from a Visual Basic learning curve?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when it was the script kiddie 's substitute for cgi-perl .
What does it offer from a theoretical and engineering PoV , apart from a Visual Basic learning curve ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when it was the script kiddie's substitute for cgi-perl.
What does it offer from a theoretical and engineering PoV, apart from a Visual Basic learning curve?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294</id>
	<title>The REAL solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just serve up plain text files.  Anything else is pure decadence!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just serve up plain text files .
Anything else is pure decadence !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just serve up plain text files.
Anything else is pure decadence!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505266</id>
	<title>Re:people use PHP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261335600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP does not only what you need it to do, but what all sorts of web visitors want it to do as well.  Isn't SQL injection beautiful?  Thank you, PHP, for such ingenuities as magic\_quotes, lack of placeholder/bindings for SQL (do not tell me to use mysqli, fuck you), and lack of casting (hey man let's invent === and !==, everyone will understand).</p><p>Why are you using PHP when you could be using <a href="http://search.cpan.org/~mmathews/Markup-Perl-0.5/lib/Markup/Perl.pm" title="cpan.org" rel="nofollow">Markup::Perl</a> [cpan.org] instead?  Seriously.  Every time I show coders this module, they stare at it for a while and then ask "...hmm, so what purpose does PHP serve again?"</p><p>I've read some posts here talking about APC, memcached, blah blah -- okay, memcached is pretty sweet, but APC is a pile of shit.  Stay the fuck away from it, you'll thank me later.  But people should be asking themselves: why do we need crap like this?  Why do we need "caching daemons" and such added infrastructure (not built-in!) to solve shortcomings of languages?  Hell, RRDtool has the same problem with regards to scalability -- Tobi's solution?  <a href="http://oss.oetiker.ch/rrdtool/doc/rrdcached.en.html" title="oetiker.ch" rel="nofollow">Better introduce a caching daemon</a> [oetiker.ch] rather than admit the original design sucks balls.  You can't polish a turd.</p><p>This just circles back to open-source and the incredibly-common-in-the-*IX-community ideal: "don't ever re-invent the wheel.  Improve on it".  This concept/ideal needs to be taken out and beat with a stick a hundred times over.  Re-invent something from scratch if the existing design/implementation surrounding it DOES NOT suit your needs, or does not fit with your modus operandi.  "It would be like pooping on poop." -- Triumph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP does not only what you need it to do , but what all sorts of web visitors want it to do as well .
Is n't SQL injection beautiful ?
Thank you , PHP , for such ingenuities as magic \ _quotes , lack of placeholder/bindings for SQL ( do not tell me to use mysqli , fuck you ) , and lack of casting ( hey man let 's invent = = = and ! = = , everyone will understand ) .Why are you using PHP when you could be using Markup : : Perl [ cpan.org ] instead ?
Seriously. Every time I show coders this module , they stare at it for a while and then ask " ...hmm , so what purpose does PHP serve again ?
" I 've read some posts here talking about APC , memcached , blah blah -- okay , memcached is pretty sweet , but APC is a pile of shit .
Stay the fuck away from it , you 'll thank me later .
But people should be asking themselves : why do we need crap like this ?
Why do we need " caching daemons " and such added infrastructure ( not built-in !
) to solve shortcomings of languages ?
Hell , RRDtool has the same problem with regards to scalability -- Tobi 's solution ?
Better introduce a caching daemon [ oetiker.ch ] rather than admit the original design sucks balls .
You ca n't polish a turd.This just circles back to open-source and the incredibly-common-in-the- * IX-community ideal : " do n't ever re-invent the wheel .
Improve on it " .
This concept/ideal needs to be taken out and beat with a stick a hundred times over .
Re-invent something from scratch if the existing design/implementation surrounding it DOES NOT suit your needs , or does not fit with your modus operandi .
" It would be like pooping on poop .
" -- Triumph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP does not only what you need it to do, but what all sorts of web visitors want it to do as well.
Isn't SQL injection beautiful?
Thank you, PHP, for such ingenuities as magic\_quotes, lack of placeholder/bindings for SQL (do not tell me to use mysqli, fuck you), and lack of casting (hey man let's invent === and !==, everyone will understand).Why are you using PHP when you could be using Markup::Perl [cpan.org] instead?
Seriously.  Every time I show coders this module, they stare at it for a while and then ask "...hmm, so what purpose does PHP serve again?
"I've read some posts here talking about APC, memcached, blah blah -- okay, memcached is pretty sweet, but APC is a pile of shit.
Stay the fuck away from it, you'll thank me later.
But people should be asking themselves: why do we need crap like this?
Why do we need "caching daemons" and such added infrastructure (not built-in!
) to solve shortcomings of languages?
Hell, RRDtool has the same problem with regards to scalability -- Tobi's solution?
Better introduce a caching daemon [oetiker.ch] rather than admit the original design sucks balls.
You can't polish a turd.This just circles back to open-source and the incredibly-common-in-the-*IX-community ideal: "don't ever re-invent the wheel.
Improve on it".
This concept/ideal needs to be taken out and beat with a stick a hundred times over.
Re-invent something from scratch if the existing design/implementation surrounding it DOES NOT suit your needs, or does not fit with your modus operandi.
"It would be like pooping on poop.
" -- Triumph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505936</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261341240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think languages other than C/C++ like PHP are immune to security issues, please PLEASE stop writing code.</p><p>Buffer overflows are one class of exploits generally caused by inexperienced devs who don't have discipline.  They just do something else stupid in languages that prevent buffer overflow issues internally.   Instead that'll do something retarded like taking input directly from a web page and forming an SQL query rather than using a parameterized query.</p><p>The only people who scream and shout about how a language fixes security issues are ones who don't know what they are talking about.</p><p>Languages do not create security issues, they do not cause them, they do not fix them.  All security issues are caused and solved by the developer.</p><p>Stop blaming the language for your short comings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think languages other than C/C + + like PHP are immune to security issues , please PLEASE stop writing code.Buffer overflows are one class of exploits generally caused by inexperienced devs who do n't have discipline .
They just do something else stupid in languages that prevent buffer overflow issues internally .
Instead that 'll do something retarded like taking input directly from a web page and forming an SQL query rather than using a parameterized query.The only people who scream and shout about how a language fixes security issues are ones who do n't know what they are talking about.Languages do not create security issues , they do not cause them , they do not fix them .
All security issues are caused and solved by the developer.Stop blaming the language for your short comings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think languages other than C/C++ like PHP are immune to security issues, please PLEASE stop writing code.Buffer overflows are one class of exploits generally caused by inexperienced devs who don't have discipline.
They just do something else stupid in languages that prevent buffer overflow issues internally.
Instead that'll do something retarded like taking input directly from a web page and forming an SQL query rather than using a parameterized query.The only people who scream and shout about how a language fixes security issues are ones who don't know what they are talking about.Languages do not create security issues, they do not cause them, they do not fix them.
All security issues are caused and solved by the developer.Stop blaming the language for your short comings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504280</id>
	<title>tax them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they should be charged a 10\% pollution tax for every server above the amount needed by C++ code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should be charged a 10 \ % pollution tax for every server above the amount needed by C + + code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should be charged a 10\% pollution tax for every server above the amount needed by C++ code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509976</id>
	<title>Fuck facebook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook [ guardian.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook [guardian.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509472</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1261336020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ever read bad PHP code?</p></div><p>My hobby is refactoring PHP code.  Note I say hobby, and not job.</p><p>After cutting my teeth with C, I moved on to web development with Perl.  I was really annoyed at all the quirks in that language, namely, bizarre subroutines instead of functions, and clever regular expressions everywhere.  Perl was just a pain, and I still don't like it!  So, I decided to give PHP a spin, and I liked it because it was closer to the C code I used to write.</p><p>It didn't take long for me to realize there was something seriously wrong with the language.  After reading up on its history, I realized the problem: PHP is a crappy template engine that has been "upgraded" into a language over the course of many painful years.  Horrible inconsistencies and limitations abound, names of functions make little sense, and it's taken years for even the most basic facilities to be kludged in.  References work in reverse?  I have to test for automatic quotes at runtime to make sure I don't double-encode input?  Some text functions are binary safe and others aren't?  Completely different APIs for MySQL 4 and MySQL 5?  Yeah, okay... thanks.</p><p>I went out of my way to study the language and write code correctly, but I can't blame people for writing bad PHP code.  PHP is the Windows of the web development world.  Nobody really designed it, it just kind of "grew" out of some little hack project and caught on among the rookies.</p><p>The only reason I work with PHP is because I want to make redistributable code that will work on shared servers, where people cannot install a new language on the server.  Perl and PHP are your only options for that, and Perl can be a bitch to get running correctly, depending on the server's security policy.  I don't care if Python makes a comeback or Ruby catches on, or whatever.  I just want... something <i>else</i> to work with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever read bad PHP code ? My hobby is refactoring PHP code .
Note I say hobby , and not job.After cutting my teeth with C , I moved on to web development with Perl .
I was really annoyed at all the quirks in that language , namely , bizarre subroutines instead of functions , and clever regular expressions everywhere .
Perl was just a pain , and I still do n't like it !
So , I decided to give PHP a spin , and I liked it because it was closer to the C code I used to write.It did n't take long for me to realize there was something seriously wrong with the language .
After reading up on its history , I realized the problem : PHP is a crappy template engine that has been " upgraded " into a language over the course of many painful years .
Horrible inconsistencies and limitations abound , names of functions make little sense , and it 's taken years for even the most basic facilities to be kludged in .
References work in reverse ?
I have to test for automatic quotes at runtime to make sure I do n't double-encode input ?
Some text functions are binary safe and others are n't ?
Completely different APIs for MySQL 4 and MySQL 5 ?
Yeah , okay... thanks.I went out of my way to study the language and write code correctly , but I ca n't blame people for writing bad PHP code .
PHP is the Windows of the web development world .
Nobody really designed it , it just kind of " grew " out of some little hack project and caught on among the rookies.The only reason I work with PHP is because I want to make redistributable code that will work on shared servers , where people can not install a new language on the server .
Perl and PHP are your only options for that , and Perl can be a bitch to get running correctly , depending on the server 's security policy .
I do n't care if Python makes a comeback or Ruby catches on , or whatever .
I just want... something else to work with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever read bad PHP code?My hobby is refactoring PHP code.
Note I say hobby, and not job.After cutting my teeth with C, I moved on to web development with Perl.
I was really annoyed at all the quirks in that language, namely, bizarre subroutines instead of functions, and clever regular expressions everywhere.
Perl was just a pain, and I still don't like it!
So, I decided to give PHP a spin, and I liked it because it was closer to the C code I used to write.It didn't take long for me to realize there was something seriously wrong with the language.
After reading up on its history, I realized the problem: PHP is a crappy template engine that has been "upgraded" into a language over the course of many painful years.
Horrible inconsistencies and limitations abound, names of functions make little sense, and it's taken years for even the most basic facilities to be kludged in.
References work in reverse?
I have to test for automatic quotes at runtime to make sure I don't double-encode input?
Some text functions are binary safe and others aren't?
Completely different APIs for MySQL 4 and MySQL 5?
Yeah, okay... thanks.I went out of my way to study the language and write code correctly, but I can't blame people for writing bad PHP code.
PHP is the Windows of the web development world.
Nobody really designed it, it just kind of "grew" out of some little hack project and caught on among the rookies.The only reason I work with PHP is because I want to make redistributable code that will work on shared servers, where people cannot install a new language on the server.
Perl and PHP are your only options for that, and Perl can be a bitch to get running correctly, depending on the server's security policy.
I don't care if Python makes a comeback or Ruby catches on, or whatever.
I just want... something else to work with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505510</id>
	<title>Re:C++ is bad for the environment</title>
	<author>luzr</author>
	<datestamp>1261338000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C/C++ is mabye 10-100x faster and more efficient <i>for carefully written inner loops</i>.  At the level of whole systems, it's an entirely different story. Because C++ lacks garbage collection, people end up retaining far more memory than they need to.</p></div><p>Only people still using manual memory management.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Because algorithms are far harder to express in C++, people end up using brute force algorithms (linear search, etc.) a lot.</p></div><p>Is this some kind of joke? I would swap C++ for PHP anytime to actually GAIN possibility to express algorithms easily.
</p><p>
There is no such language where experienced programmer could do refined algorithm a well as in C++.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Because templates need specially compiled versions for each combination of template arguments, you end up with dozens of different instances of basically the same code.</p></div><p>Yeah, app code might occupy a little bit more. Really big apps in C++ have say 20 MB compiled. So they would be only 15MB without extensive template use. Hardly any difference if your memory space is in gigabytes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But for many applications, like GUIs, C++ not only fails to be faster, it also ends up making everything a lot slower and more bloated.</p></div><p>It is hard to make general statements about C++ and GUI. In some cases, like MFC, you are certainly true. Other like Qt are better. Some claim to outrun everything else in terms of both development costs and runtime performance:
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vsswing$en-us.html" title="ultimatepp.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vsswing$en-us.html</a> [ultimatepp.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>If our desktops were largely written in Python, Ruby, or Smalltalk, we'd be using a lot less energy and be able to get by with smaller, less-powerful machines.  That's in addition to all the savings from the reduced number of bugs and reduced development costs.</p></div><p>What a pity they are mainly written in C (GTK, Windows), Java (Android) and Objective C (MacOS X) then...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C/C + + is mabye 10-100x faster and more efficient for carefully written inner loops .
At the level of whole systems , it 's an entirely different story .
Because C + + lacks garbage collection , people end up retaining far more memory than they need to.Only people still using manual memory management.Because algorithms are far harder to express in C + + , people end up using brute force algorithms ( linear search , etc .
) a lot.Is this some kind of joke ?
I would swap C + + for PHP anytime to actually GAIN possibility to express algorithms easily .
There is no such language where experienced programmer could do refined algorithm a well as in C + + .Because templates need specially compiled versions for each combination of template arguments , you end up with dozens of different instances of basically the same code.Yeah , app code might occupy a little bit more .
Really big apps in C + + have say 20 MB compiled .
So they would be only 15MB without extensive template use .
Hardly any difference if your memory space is in gigabytes.But for many applications , like GUIs , C + + not only fails to be faster , it also ends up making everything a lot slower and more bloated.It is hard to make general statements about C + + and GUI .
In some cases , like MFC , you are certainly true .
Other like Qt are better .
Some claim to outrun everything else in terms of both development costs and runtime performance : http : //www.ultimatepp.org/www $ uppweb $ vsswing $ en-us.html [ ultimatepp.org ] If our desktops were largely written in Python , Ruby , or Smalltalk , we 'd be using a lot less energy and be able to get by with smaller , less-powerful machines .
That 's in addition to all the savings from the reduced number of bugs and reduced development costs.What a pity they are mainly written in C ( GTK , Windows ) , Java ( Android ) and Objective C ( MacOS X ) then.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C/C++ is mabye 10-100x faster and more efficient for carefully written inner loops.
At the level of whole systems, it's an entirely different story.
Because C++ lacks garbage collection, people end up retaining far more memory than they need to.Only people still using manual memory management.Because algorithms are far harder to express in C++, people end up using brute force algorithms (linear search, etc.
) a lot.Is this some kind of joke?
I would swap C++ for PHP anytime to actually GAIN possibility to express algorithms easily.
There is no such language where experienced programmer could do refined algorithm a well as in C++.Because templates need specially compiled versions for each combination of template arguments, you end up with dozens of different instances of basically the same code.Yeah, app code might occupy a little bit more.
Really big apps in C++ have say 20 MB compiled.
So they would be only 15MB without extensive template use.
Hardly any difference if your memory space is in gigabytes.But for many applications, like GUIs, C++ not only fails to be faster, it also ends up making everything a lot slower and more bloated.It is hard to make general statements about C++ and GUI.
In some cases, like MFC, you are certainly true.
Other like Qt are better.
Some claim to outrun everything else in terms of both development costs and runtime performance:

http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vsswing$en-us.html [ultimatepp.org] If our desktops were largely written in Python, Ruby, or Smalltalk, we'd be using a lot less energy and be able to get by with smaller, less-powerful machines.
That's in addition to all the savings from the reduced number of bugs and reduced development costs.What a pity they are mainly written in C (GTK, Windows), Java (Android) and Objective C (MacOS X) then...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505104</id>
	<title>One word...</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1261334520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Compile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506472</id>
	<title>C++. Phooey.</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1261302480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C++ is an atom bomb in the hands of a chimp.</p><p>I've tested software for about 15 years. I can tell you from experience that THE most buggy, nasty, ill designed applications I've ever tested were written in C++.</p><p>The world is more than performance. For many, many application, the blazing speed of pointers on a local application simply *don't* *matter*.</p><p>Unless I needed to process large chunks of binary data in real time, I'd use anything else but C++. For a web application, I am *sure* that the downtime due to crashes, memory loss, uninitialized pointers and all the other dreck that each and every C++ programmer is convinced never happens to *them* would cost more time, cycles and energy than a perfectly functional PHP application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + is an atom bomb in the hands of a chimp.I 've tested software for about 15 years .
I can tell you from experience that THE most buggy , nasty , ill designed applications I 've ever tested were written in C + + .The world is more than performance .
For many , many application , the blazing speed of pointers on a local application simply * do n't * * matter * .Unless I needed to process large chunks of binary data in real time , I 'd use anything else but C + + .
For a web application , I am * sure * that the downtime due to crashes , memory loss , uninitialized pointers and all the other dreck that each and every C + + programmer is convinced never happens to * them * would cost more time , cycles and energy than a perfectly functional PHP application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ is an atom bomb in the hands of a chimp.I've tested software for about 15 years.
I can tell you from experience that THE most buggy, nasty, ill designed applications I've ever tested were written in C++.The world is more than performance.
For many, many application, the blazing speed of pointers on a local application simply *don't* *matter*.Unless I needed to process large chunks of binary data in real time, I'd use anything else but C++.
For a web application, I am *sure* that the downtime due to crashes, memory loss, uninitialized pointers and all the other dreck that each and every C++ programmer is convinced never happens to *them* would cost more time, cycles and energy than a perfectly functional PHP application.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504982</id>
	<title>Not entirely true</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1261333500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assuming that the average C++ coder is heavier and bigger in size (even when shaved) that the average PHP coder, I think the exhalation of CO2 produced by the C++ programmers needed for the job overpower the 10:1 edge they have on code speed.<br>Also, they probably eat more, and drink more coffee, which turns into a bigger environmental footprint if you count the emissions produced by trucks that deliver those groceries to the nearest store. And, just to name one example: Let's assume that 50\% of the coffee company employees drive to their work and so on....</p><p>Hey, they are the ones who started drawing conclusions based on assumptions, not me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming that the average C + + coder is heavier and bigger in size ( even when shaved ) that the average PHP coder , I think the exhalation of CO2 produced by the C + + programmers needed for the job overpower the 10 : 1 edge they have on code speed.Also , they probably eat more , and drink more coffee , which turns into a bigger environmental footprint if you count the emissions produced by trucks that deliver those groceries to the nearest store .
And , just to name one example : Let 's assume that 50 \ % of the coffee company employees drive to their work and so on....Hey , they are the ones who started drawing conclusions based on assumptions , not me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming that the average C++ coder is heavier and bigger in size (even when shaved) that the average PHP coder, I think the exhalation of CO2 produced by the C++ programmers needed for the job overpower the 10:1 edge they have on code speed.Also, they probably eat more, and drink more coffee, which turns into a bigger environmental footprint if you count the emissions produced by trucks that deliver those groceries to the nearest store.
And, just to name one example: Let's assume that 50\% of the coffee company employees drive to their work and so on....Hey, they are the ones who started drawing conclusions based on assumptions, not me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507474</id>
	<title>Fart vs PHP</title>
	<author>Ego\_and\_his\_own</author>
	<datestamp>1261311360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if we managed to sustain a fart at least once a year we would putt less CO2 for a year than PHP cause for 10 years.  Not to mention that how much PHP with all that Open Source phenomenon behind it save lives and nervs...

PHP affected more on suicidal numbers that anything in C++ Web development world...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if we managed to sustain a fart at least once a year we would putt less CO2 for a year than PHP cause for 10 years .
Not to mention that how much PHP with all that Open Source phenomenon behind it save lives and nervs.. . PHP affected more on suicidal numbers that anything in C + + Web development world.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if we managed to sustain a fart at least once a year we would putt less CO2 for a year than PHP cause for 10 years.
Not to mention that how much PHP with all that Open Source phenomenon behind it save lives and nervs...

PHP affected more on suicidal numbers that anything in C++ Web development world...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30530004</id>
	<title>A trolling weak argument - but, this isn't... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261480800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"1. It is not a compact format</p><p>2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.</p><p>3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)</p><p>4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database</p><p>5. If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article. So does Wikipedia. - <a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/</a> [wordpress.com]</p> </div><p>Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:</p><p>====</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"1. It is not a compact format"</b>  - by Foredecker <a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/</a> [wordpress.com]</p> </div><p> <b>APK REPLY/REBUTTAL:</b> It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller &amp; F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).</p><p>Funny - because Windows 2000 had it &amp; still does (as do Windows XP &amp; Windows Server 2003 still). However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller &amp; faster, &amp; a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!)</p><p>----</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"2. It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed"</b>  - by Foredecker <a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/</a> [wordpress.com]</p> </div><p> <b>APK REPLY/REBUTTAL:</b> NO, it does not.</p><p>The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.</p><p>Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file &amp; "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!</p><p>----</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"3. No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)"</b>  - by Foredecker <a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/</a> [wordpress.com]</p> </div><p> <b>APK REPLY/REBUTTAL:</b> The HOSTS file doesn't require this. Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows. It is a text file, period &amp; SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, &amp; 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).</p><p>----</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"4. There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database"</b>  - by Foredecker <a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/</a> [wordpress.com]</p> </div><p> <b>APK REPLY/REBUTTAL:</b> You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it. Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)</p><p>----</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>"5.) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things. Oliver day mentions this in his article"</b>  - by Foredecker <a href="http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/</a> [wordpress.com]</p> </div><p> <b>APK REPLY/REBUTTAL:</b> HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...</p><p>====</p><p>"too, Too, TOO EASY"...</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; <b>I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP Stack @ Microsoft where you work... especially, since you claim your role there is about performance improvements, &amp; let them see my points here on HOSTS files + what has occurred in them for VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 which detract from their efficiency in filesize, read &amp; load speeds...</b></p><p>After all, HOSTS are known to make you go faster AND SAFER online (in the next URL below is my evidence of that &amp; it exists from the likes of Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM for instance &amp; more there in that regards), so, if you have a good custom HOSTS file, it works for BOTH extra speed &amp; security online, from a SINGLE EASILY EDITED &amp; OBTAINED reliable version of this file...</p><p>(&amp;, the usage of a 0 blocking address (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) only aids their efficiency for filesize by up to 61\% roughly plus readspeed into RAM + even less CPU usage, since HOSTS are read into memory via a WHILE loop, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) is hit, signalling end of line, &amp; then continuing until the EOF (end-of-file) marker/trailer record is encountered - &amp; 0 is less characters, line for line, than is 0.0.0.0 or worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" (which since it is a 'loopback operation' technically takes even MORE time &amp; MORE CPU)).</p><p>Thus, using HOSTS, &amp; especially a more efficient 0 based blocking address version of HOSTS (which yes, when sites blocked by it are "ping'd", you get a completely valid &amp; legit 0.0.0.0 back on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 where it STILL WORKS, vs. Windows VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, where it no longer does (but did in VISTA until 12/09/2008 until that Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" @ least, but no longer, &amp; certainly NOT on Windows Server 2008 or Windows 7 as well)).</p><p>So, using a HOSTS file (especially a 0 based blocking one) You can protect the user vs. malwares this way, and also speed them up online surfing the web via this file easily enough also (&amp;, to a HIGH extent, even "proof" the end-user vs. DNS server request logs also (sure, you can trace them via pings &amp;/or traceroutes (because of the TLD that maintains reverse-DNS lookups data) but, this makes it a LOT harder to do by NOC personnel))!</p><p>SO - "that all said &amp; aside"? See my points above, AND, those I made in reply to you here -&gt; <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&amp;cid=30355842" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&amp;cid=30355842</a> [slashdot.org] as well!</p><p>Thanks for your time... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 1 .
It is not a compact format2 .
It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.3 .
No support for Unicode host names ( its an ANSI text file , not UTF8 ) 4 .
There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database5 .
If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things .
Oliver day mentions this in his article .
So does Wikipedia .
- http : //foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [ wordpress.com ] Per your points on HOSTS files , my disprovals of your points are below , 1 by 1 , via an emumerated reply : = = = = " 1 .
It is not a compact format " - by Foredecker http : //foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [ wordpress.com ] APK REPLY/REBUTTAL : It is n't when you folks removed what makes it smaller &amp; F A S T E R to read up from disk/file , into memory ( 0 blocking address , no longer possible in VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008 , when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS ) .Funny - because Windows 2000 had it &amp; still does ( as do Windows XP &amp; Windows Server 2003 still ) .
However , Windows 2000 did n't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack , afterwards ( because it is smaller &amp; faster , &amp; a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA , up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday , but not afterwards !
) ---- " 2 .
It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed " - by Foredecker http : //foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [ wordpress.com ] APK REPLY/REBUTTAL : NO , it does not.The local DNS client can handle it , but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE ( another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF , failing on larger HOSTS files , mind you ) ... so , you disable the local DNS client service is all.Then , your local diskcache subsystem caches the file &amp; " repeated reads " are ELIMINATED ! ---- " 3 .
No support for Unicode host names ( its an ANSI text file , not UTF8 ) " - by Foredecker http : //foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [ wordpress.com ] APK REPLY/REBUTTAL : The HOSTS file does n't require this .
Not on * NIX variants , not on Windows .
It is a text file , period &amp; SPECIFICALLY , an ASCII text file ( not the types you stated ) , per RFC 606 , 608 , &amp; 627 ( nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above , this is how it was designed not by Microsoft , but by the folks in the * NIX world , period , via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack ) .---- " 4 .
There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database " - by Foredecker http : //foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [ wordpress.com ] APK REPLY/REBUTTAL : You can READ ONLY ( set this attribute on it ) protect it .
Easy enough ( or more radically , apply ACL security to it ) ---- " 5 .
) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things .
Oliver day mentions this in his article " - by Foredecker http : //foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [ wordpress.com ] APK REPLY/REBUTTAL : HENCE , what I noted in my reply to your POINT # 4 above... = = = = " too , Too , TOO EASY " ...APKP.S. = &gt; I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers , specifically those in charge of the IP Stack @ Microsoft where you work... especially , since you claim your role there is about performance improvements , &amp; let them see my points here on HOSTS files + what has occurred in them for VISTA , Windows Server 2008 , &amp; Windows 7 which detract from their efficiency in filesize , read &amp; load speeds...After all , HOSTS are known to make you go faster AND SAFER online ( in the next URL below is my evidence of that &amp; it exists from the likes of Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM for instance &amp; more there in that regards ) , so , if you have a good custom HOSTS file , it works for BOTH extra speed &amp; security online , from a SINGLE EASILY EDITED &amp; OBTAINED reliable version of this file... ( &amp; , the usage of a 0 blocking address ( vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 ) only aids their efficiency for filesize by up to 61 \ % roughly plus readspeed into RAM + even less CPU usage , since HOSTS are read into memory via a WHILE loop , character-by-character , until the CR + LF ( enter keypress ) is hit , signalling end of line , &amp; then continuing until the EOF ( end-of-file ) marker/trailer record is encountered - &amp; 0 is less characters , line for line , than is 0.0.0.0 or worse yet , the default 127.0.0.1 " loopback adapter " ( which since it is a 'loopback operation ' technically takes even MORE time &amp; MORE CPU ) ) .Thus , using HOSTS , &amp; especially a more efficient 0 based blocking address version of HOSTS ( which yes , when sites blocked by it are " ping 'd " , you get a completely valid &amp; legit 0.0.0.0 back on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 where it STILL WORKS , vs. Windows VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7 , where it no longer does ( but did in VISTA until 12/09/2008 until that Microsoft " Patch Tuesday " @ least , but no longer , &amp; certainly NOT on Windows Server 2008 or Windows 7 as well ) ) .So , using a HOSTS file ( especially a 0 based blocking one ) You can protect the user vs. malwares this way , and also speed them up online surfing the web via this file easily enough also ( &amp; , to a HIGH extent , even " proof " the end-user vs. DNS server request logs also ( sure , you can trace them via pings &amp;/or traceroutes ( because of the TLD that maintains reverse-DNS lookups data ) but , this makes it a LOT harder to do by NOC personnel ) ) ! SO - " that all said &amp; aside " ?
See my points above , AND , those I made in reply to you here - &gt; http : //slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1467692&amp;cid = 30355842 [ slashdot.org ] as well ! Thanks for your time... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"1.
It is not a compact format2.
It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed.3.
No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)4.
There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database5.
If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things.
Oliver day mentions this in his article.
So does Wikipedia.
- http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com] Per your points on HOSTS files, my disprovals of your points are below, 1 by 1, via an emumerated reply:==== "1.
It is not a compact format"  - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com]  APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: It isn't when you folks removed what makes it smaller &amp; F A S T E R to read up from disk/file, into memory (0 blocking address, no longer possible in VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 ever since MS Patch Tuesday 12/08/2008, when Microsoft REMOVED 0 as a legit blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows NT based OS).Funny - because Windows 2000 had it &amp; still does (as do Windows XP &amp; Windows Server 2003 still).
However, Windows 2000 didn't have 0 as a LEGITIMATE BLOCKING ADDRESS FOR HOSTS FILES in its original model for sale on CD... 0 was added in a service pack, afterwards (because it is smaller &amp; faster, &amp; a good thing... a good thing I am wondering WHY you have removed from HOSTS in Windows VISTA onwards... when it DID WORK ON VISTA, up to 12/09/2008 MS Patch Tuesday, but not afterwards!
)---- "2.
It has to be read into memory often the file itself isnt searchable or indexed"  - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com]  APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: NO, it does not.The local DNS client can handle it, but ONLY UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE (another problem IS the DNS CLIENT CACHE ITSELF, failing on larger HOSTS files, mind you)... so, you disable the local DNS client service is all.Then, your local diskcache subsystem caches the file &amp; "repeated reads" are ELIMINATED!---- "3.
No support for Unicode host names (its an ANSI text file, not UTF8)"  - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com]  APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: The HOSTS file doesn't require this.
Not on *NIX variants, not on Windows.
It is a text file, period &amp; SPECIFICALLY, an ASCII text file (not the types you stated), per RFC 606, 608, &amp; 627 (nor is it a database as you seem to be alluding to above, this is how it was designed not by Microsoft, but by the folks in the *NIX world, period, via the BSD reference design which Microsoft uses for their IP stack).---- "4.
There is no way to control access for readers and writers its a text file not a database"  - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com]  APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: You can READ ONLY (set this attribute on it) protect it.
Easy enough (or more radically, apply ACL security to it)---- "5.
) If I was a malware writer this is the first place Id look to change things.
Oliver day mentions this in his article"  - by Foredecker http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy/ [wordpress.com]  APK REPLY/REBUTTAL: HENCE, what I noted in my reply to your POINT #4 above...===="too, Too, TOO EASY"...APKP.S.=&gt; I only hope you have the good sense to contact your peers, specifically those in charge of the IP Stack @ Microsoft where you work... especially, since you claim your role there is about performance improvements, &amp; let them see my points here on HOSTS files + what has occurred in them for VISTA, Windows Server 2008, &amp; Windows 7 which detract from their efficiency in filesize, read &amp; load speeds...After all, HOSTS are known to make you go faster AND SAFER online (in the next URL below is my evidence of that &amp; it exists from the likes of Mr. Oliver Day of SECURITYFOCUS.COM for instance &amp; more there in that regards), so, if you have a good custom HOSTS file, it works for BOTH extra speed &amp; security online, from a SINGLE EASILY EDITED &amp; OBTAINED reliable version of this file...(&amp;, the usage of a 0 blocking address (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) only aids their efficiency for filesize by up to 61\% roughly plus readspeed into RAM + even less CPU usage, since HOSTS are read into memory via a WHILE loop, character-by-character, until the CR+LF (enter keypress) is hit, signalling end of line, &amp; then continuing until the EOF (end-of-file) marker/trailer record is encountered - &amp; 0 is less characters, line for line, than is 0.0.0.0 or worse yet, the default 127.0.0.1 "loopback adapter" (which since it is a 'loopback operation' technically takes even MORE time &amp; MORE CPU)).Thus, using HOSTS, &amp; especially a more efficient 0 based blocking address version of HOSTS (which yes, when sites blocked by it are "ping'd", you get a completely valid &amp; legit 0.0.0.0 back on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 where it STILL WORKS, vs. Windows VISTA/Windows Server 2008/Windows 7, where it no longer does (but did in VISTA until 12/09/2008 until that Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" @ least, but no longer, &amp; certainly NOT on Windows Server 2008 or Windows 7 as well)).So, using a HOSTS file (especially a 0 based blocking one) You can protect the user vs. malwares this way, and also speed them up online surfing the web via this file easily enough also (&amp;, to a HIGH extent, even "proof" the end-user vs. DNS server request logs also (sure, you can trace them via pings &amp;/or traceroutes (because of the TLD that maintains reverse-DNS lookups data) but, this makes it a LOT harder to do by NOC personnel))!SO - "that all said &amp; aside"?
See my points above, AND, those I made in reply to you here -&gt; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&amp;cid=30355842 [slashdot.org] as well!Thanks for your time... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505452</id>
	<title>Re:Those in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261337340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That site was already eating "its own dog food":</p><p>The whole thing was written in C++ using their Wt toolkit - the complete source code (of their website) is even available in the public git repo!</p><p>So let's hope they had the profiling build deployed before the "fist of slashdot" hit the app server - it's a single virtual host somewhere in Belgium<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<br>Really looking forward to some "optimization commits" in the next few days *ggg*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That site was already eating " its own dog food " : The whole thing was written in C + + using their Wt toolkit - the complete source code ( of their website ) is even available in the public git repo ! So let 's hope they had the profiling build deployed before the " fist of slashdot " hit the app server - it 's a single virtual host somewhere in Belgium ; - ) Really looking forward to some " optimization commits " in the next few days * ggg *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That site was already eating "its own dog food":The whole thing was written in C++ using their Wt toolkit - the complete source code (of their website) is even available in the public git repo!So let's hope they had the profiling build deployed before the "fist of slashdot" hit the app server - it's a single virtual host somewhere in Belgium ;-)Really looking forward to some "optimization commits" in the next few days *ggg*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509496</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>int int1, int2, int3, int4, int6, int7;<br>
&nbsp;</p> </div><p>Please tell me why. I mean, there <i>is</i> a why, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>int int1 , int2 , int3 , int4 , int6 , int7 ;   Please tell me why .
I mean , there is a why , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>int int1, int2, int3, int4, int6, int7;
  Please tell me why.
I mean, there is a why, right?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504844</id>
	<title>Megatroll</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1261332480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>blah, this is the sort of troll that makes us c++ lovers look so bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>blah , this is the sort of troll that makes us c + + lovers look so bad : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blah, this is the sort of troll that makes us c++ lovers look so bad :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506098</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>porneL</author>
	<datestamp>1261342500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If there is so much PHP out there, why wouldn't/couldn't there be an efficient compiler</p><p>There is <a href="http://www.phpcompiler.org/" title="phpcompiler.org">PHC</a> [phpcompiler.org] and Roadsend.</p><p>However there are PHP-specific problems that make it harder than it should be.</p><p>PHP's "standard library" is heavily dependent on the interpreter, so you either lug it around and maintain its state, or rewrite 5000 methods.</p><p>And there's of course eval(), extract(), dynamic include/autoload and other magic that makes static analysis pretty hard or impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If there is so much PHP out there , why would n't/could n't there be an efficient compilerThere is PHC [ phpcompiler.org ] and Roadsend.However there are PHP-specific problems that make it harder than it should be.PHP 's " standard library " is heavily dependent on the interpreter , so you either lug it around and maintain its state , or rewrite 5000 methods.And there 's of course eval ( ) , extract ( ) , dynamic include/autoload and other magic that makes static analysis pretty hard or impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If there is so much PHP out there, why wouldn't/couldn't there be an efficient compilerThere is PHC [phpcompiler.org] and Roadsend.However there are PHP-specific problems that make it harder than it should be.PHP's "standard library" is heavily dependent on the interpreter, so you either lug it around and maintain its state, or rewrite 5000 methods.And there's of course eval(), extract(), dynamic include/autoload and other magic that makes static analysis pretty hard or impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505204</id>
	<title>Green Languages??</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1261335240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, this has gone WAY too far<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. we all need to just take a step back..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , this has gone WAY too far .. we all need to just take a step back. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, this has gone WAY too far .. we all need to just take a step back..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504992</id>
	<title>Premature Optimization</title>
	<author>mortonda</author>
	<datestamp>1261333560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb statements like this is what leads to premature optimization.   Show me the proof:  Put a profiler on facebook and show me where the bulk of code execution is happening.   I seriously doubt one could code a similar app in C++ and make it run smoothly and stable and yet save that many servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb statements like this is what leads to premature optimization .
Show me the proof : Put a profiler on facebook and show me where the bulk of code execution is happening .
I seriously doubt one could code a similar app in C + + and make it run smoothly and stable and yet save that many servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb statements like this is what leads to premature optimization.
Show me the proof:  Put a profiler on facebook and show me where the bulk of code execution is happening.
I seriously doubt one could code a similar app in C++ and make it run smoothly and stable and yet save that many servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510212</id>
	<title>Re:F1 car in normal street.</title>
	<author>hayriye</author>
	<datestamp>1261392060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Facebook is probably one of the few sites that could have written part of it on fast C++ code. In a F1 race, you will use a F1 car.</p></div><p>Facebook is "24 hours of Le Mans" or "Dakar Rally" than F1.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is probably one of the few sites that could have written part of it on fast C + + code .
In a F1 race , you will use a F1 car.Facebook is " 24 hours of Le Mans " or " Dakar Rally " than F1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is probably one of the few sites that could have written part of it on fast C++ code.
In a F1 race, you will use a F1 car.Facebook is "24 hours of Le Mans" or "Dakar Rally" than F1.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508816</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of programmer needs 10000+ terminals to write a C++ application?  Incompetency is the only reason C++ is not used to make those kinds of applications. I die a little everytime I remember I had to use MemCached in a RoR website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of programmer needs 10000 + terminals to write a C + + application ?
Incompetency is the only reason C + + is not used to make those kinds of applications .
I die a little everytime I remember I had to use MemCached in a RoR website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of programmer needs 10000+ terminals to write a C++ application?
Incompetency is the only reason C++ is not used to make those kinds of applications.
I die a little everytime I remember I had to use MemCached in a RoR website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505386</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1261336620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You bring up an interesting point.</p><p>How good are PHP-generated pages at marking themselves properly for cacheability?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You bring up an interesting point.How good are PHP-generated pages at marking themselves properly for cacheability ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You bring up an interesting point.How good are PHP-generated pages at marking themselves properly for cacheability?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506174</id>
	<title>Re:Why stop there?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261299900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since I'm not actually aware of any CPU that natively runs PHP code, I'm going to have to just assume that you don't realize that PHP code gets compiled as well, everytime you run it?  Okay, so if you have a proper caching engine on your PHP servers than it only gets compiled when its changed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... which interestingly enough, only then makes it just the same as a C app, not better.</p><p>'Extra maintainability' translates into lack of development skills on your part, sorry.   If you're doing anything different while developing PHP code than you would do for C or C++ then you aren't following a proper development path, you aren't actually a professional developer, you're just hacking scripts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since I 'm not actually aware of any CPU that natively runs PHP code , I 'm going to have to just assume that you do n't realize that PHP code gets compiled as well , everytime you run it ?
Okay , so if you have a proper caching engine on your PHP servers than it only gets compiled when its changed ... which interestingly enough , only then makes it just the same as a C app , not better .
'Extra maintainability ' translates into lack of development skills on your part , sorry .
If you 're doing anything different while developing PHP code than you would do for C or C + + then you are n't following a proper development path , you are n't actually a professional developer , you 're just hacking scripts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since I'm not actually aware of any CPU that natively runs PHP code, I'm going to have to just assume that you don't realize that PHP code gets compiled as well, everytime you run it?
Okay, so if you have a proper caching engine on your PHP servers than it only gets compiled when its changed ... which interestingly enough, only then makes it just the same as a C app, not better.
'Extra maintainability' translates into lack of development skills on your part, sorry.
If you're doing anything different while developing PHP code than you would do for C or C++ then you aren't following a proper development path, you aren't actually a professional developer, you're just hacking scripts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507562</id>
	<title>Re:c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>Feyr</author>
	<datestamp>1261312440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in fact, i'd go as far as saying as the best programming language in the world pretty much ensure it will be unmaintanable. since most people that write exclusively in them don't understand the underlying abstractions</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in fact , i 'd go as far as saying as the best programming language in the world pretty much ensure it will be unmaintanable .
since most people that write exclusively in them do n't understand the underlying abstractions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in fact, i'd go as far as saying as the best programming language in the world pretty much ensure it will be unmaintanable.
since most people that write exclusively in them don't understand the underlying abstractions</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505124</id>
	<title>Re:Even if PHP is running 10 times slower...</title>
	<author>I cant believe its n</author>
	<datestamp>1261334640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nicholson-php-jvm" title="infoq.com">IBM is working on</a> [infoq.com] a PHP compiler to create bytecode for the JVM. Using P8 as it is called, you can run your compiled PHP programs on a java application server such as Tomcat or JBoss.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM is working on [ infoq.com ] a PHP compiler to create bytecode for the JVM .
Using P8 as it is called , you can run your compiled PHP programs on a java application server such as Tomcat or JBoss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM is working on [infoq.com] a PHP compiler to create bytecode for the JVM.
Using P8 as it is called, you can run your compiled PHP programs on a java application server such as Tomcat or JBoss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507336</id>
	<title>Re:The REAL solution</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1261309920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The next day Doofus received an e-mail reading:
</p><p>Hey! I've just added pictures to my profile page!  You should sign up for facebook to view my pics now!
</p><p>img="drinking tequila on the beach"
<br>img="goatse"
<br>img="my wedding to a moose"
<br>img="russia, seen from my house"
<br>link=www.facerbook.com/spam/malware/download
</p><p>p.s. I don't know the real way that facebook emails are set up or how to put html code into slashdot.  Just imagine that it was in proper HTML<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The next day Doofus received an e-mail reading : Hey !
I 've just added pictures to my profile page !
You should sign up for facebook to view my pics now !
img = " drinking tequila on the beach " img = " goatse " img = " my wedding to a moose " img = " russia , seen from my house " link = www.facerbook.com/spam/malware/download p.s .
I do n't know the real way that facebook emails are set up or how to put html code into slashdot .
Just imagine that it was in proper HTML : p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The next day Doofus received an e-mail reading:
Hey!
I've just added pictures to my profile page!
You should sign up for facebook to view my pics now!
img="drinking tequila on the beach"
img="goatse"
img="my wedding to a moose"
img="russia, seen from my house"
link=www.facerbook.com/spam/malware/download
p.s.
I don't know the real way that facebook emails are set up or how to put html code into slashdot.
Just imagine that it was in proper HTML :p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504932</id>
	<title>Words of Wisdom</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261333080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To paraphrase Heinlein, who cares if the answer takes a microsecond or a nanosecond as long as it's correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To paraphrase Heinlein , who cares if the answer takes a microsecond or a nanosecond as long as it 's correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To paraphrase Heinlein, who cares if the answer takes a microsecond or a nanosecond as long as it's correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505300</id>
	<title>Compiled PHP vs interpreted PHP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261335960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If <b>Kensai7</b> is so concerned with the environmental impact of (supposedly slow) interpreted PHP, then (s)he should write an efficient PHP compiler.</p><p>This would not only make the Facebook site more environment friendly, but other PHP powered sites as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Kensai7 is so concerned with the environmental impact of ( supposedly slow ) interpreted PHP , then ( s ) he should write an efficient PHP compiler.This would not only make the Facebook site more environment friendly , but other PHP powered sites as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Kensai7 is so concerned with the environmental impact of (supposedly slow) interpreted PHP, then (s)he should write an efficient PHP compiler.This would not only make the Facebook site more environment friendly, but other PHP powered sites as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504666</id>
	<title>gay as in south park gay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261331100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gay, don't care</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gay , do n't care</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gay, don't care</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504640</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261330920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the biggest benefit. If they were coding in C++ then they would only be using about 100 servers and workstations as they still wouldn't have got it running, thus saving 29,900 servers. Then there's probably millions of clients which could have been turned off too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the biggest benefit .
If they were coding in C + + then they would only be using about 100 servers and workstations as they still would n't have got it running , thus saving 29,900 servers .
Then there 's probably millions of clients which could have been turned off too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the biggest benefit.
If they were coding in C++ then they would only be using about 100 servers and workstations as they still wouldn't have got it running, thus saving 29,900 servers.
Then there's probably millions of clients which could have been turned off too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505148</id>
	<title>Re:Assuming...</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1261334820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Latency is a different question than efficiency.  If your page generation efficiency is bad, on a small setup the difference may be imperceptible.  On a large installation, i.e. one with a large number of servers dedicated to page generation, the efficiency of those servers makes a big difference. Holding latency constant, in a large installation less efficient page generation means more servers.  In a small installation, not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Latency is a different question than efficiency .
If your page generation efficiency is bad , on a small setup the difference may be imperceptible .
On a large installation , i.e .
one with a large number of servers dedicated to page generation , the efficiency of those servers makes a big difference .
Holding latency constant , in a large installation less efficient page generation means more servers .
In a small installation , not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Latency is a different question than efficiency.
If your page generation efficiency is bad, on a small setup the difference may be imperceptible.
On a large installation, i.e.
one with a large number of servers dedicated to page generation, the efficiency of those servers makes a big difference.
Holding latency constant, in a large installation less efficient page generation means more servers.
In a small installation, not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504732</id>
	<title>Trade-offs</title>
	<author>Nihixul</author>
	<datestamp>1261331700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What about the environmental trade-offs inherent in spending time considering <b>this</b> sort of environmental impact versus spending time considering more significant environmental and conservational issues?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the environmental trade-offs inherent in spending time considering this sort of environmental impact versus spending time considering more significant environmental and conservational issues ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the environmental trade-offs inherent in spending time considering this sort of environmental impact versus spending time considering more significant environmental and conservational issues?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392</id>
	<title>c++ is 'write-only' code</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261329180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it sure seems to be, the way a lot of people write it.  write it once and hope you never have to read it since its impossible to figure out what they intended.  ever read someone's c++ code?  has it been a good experience?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it sure seems to be , the way a lot of people write it .
write it once and hope you never have to read it since its impossible to figure out what they intended .
ever read someone 's c + + code ?
has it been a good experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it sure seems to be, the way a lot of people write it.
write it once and hope you never have to read it since its impossible to figure out what they intended.
ever read someone's c++ code?
has it been a good experience?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506798</id>
	<title>Re:PHP harder to test than C++</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1261305600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time</p></div><p>That's the good news. The bad news is that the vast majority of those "problems" are issues created by the static type system itself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically can not catch until run timeThat 's the good news .
The bad news is that the vast majority of those " problems " are issues created by the static type system itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run timeThat's the good news.
The bad news is that the vast majority of those "problems" are issues created by the static type system itself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510414</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While what you say is right in the case of most websites, I don't think it applies to Facebook.<br>Caching doesn't magically speed everything up when the contents of the page changes extremely frequently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While what you say is right in the case of most websites , I do n't think it applies to Facebook.Caching does n't magically speed everything up when the contents of the page changes extremely frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While what you say is right in the case of most websites, I don't think it applies to Facebook.Caching doesn't magically speed everything up when the contents of the page changes extremely frequently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505338</id>
	<title>Plus mountain dew and doritos</title>
	<author>sam\_handelman</author>
	<datestamp>1261336260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Computer programmers are people with their own carbon footprints, $FLATULENCE\_JOKE.  So, people have raised objections to the underlying efficiency argument, I tend to agree with the people who estimate that the energy savings would be less than 10-fold, but it's not like I've looked at the diagnostic output of their servers.</p><p>
&nbsp; Labor costs money, right?  So if you assume that $X million worth of servers and electricity are cheaper than $X million worth of programmer time to reimplement the whole mess in C, then it's probably minimizing the carbon footprint to leave it alone.  This ought to be a very simple business decision.</p><p>
&nbsp; There are certainly cases where this is not true, but for most purposes, dollars spent on computer programming go directly to carbon footprint.  I'm a Socialist, certainly not a free market fanatic by any stretch, but when it comes to spending millions on highly specialized, skilled labor to reduce carbon footprint, I doubt that it's worth it unless the electricity you save costs more than the specialized labor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Computer programmers are people with their own carbon footprints , $ FLATULENCE \ _JOKE .
So , people have raised objections to the underlying efficiency argument , I tend to agree with the people who estimate that the energy savings would be less than 10-fold , but it 's not like I 've looked at the diagnostic output of their servers .
  Labor costs money , right ?
So if you assume that $ X million worth of servers and electricity are cheaper than $ X million worth of programmer time to reimplement the whole mess in C , then it 's probably minimizing the carbon footprint to leave it alone .
This ought to be a very simple business decision .
  There are certainly cases where this is not true , but for most purposes , dollars spent on computer programming go directly to carbon footprint .
I 'm a Socialist , certainly not a free market fanatic by any stretch , but when it comes to spending millions on highly specialized , skilled labor to reduce carbon footprint , I doubt that it 's worth it unless the electricity you save costs more than the specialized labor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Computer programmers are people with their own carbon footprints, $FLATULENCE\_JOKE.
So, people have raised objections to the underlying efficiency argument, I tend to agree with the people who estimate that the energy savings would be less than 10-fold, but it's not like I've looked at the diagnostic output of their servers.
  Labor costs money, right?
So if you assume that $X million worth of servers and electricity are cheaper than $X million worth of programmer time to reimplement the whole mess in C, then it's probably minimizing the carbon footprint to leave it alone.
This ought to be a very simple business decision.
  There are certainly cases where this is not true, but for most purposes, dollars spent on computer programming go directly to carbon footprint.
I'm a Socialist, certainly not a free market fanatic by any stretch, but when it comes to spending millions on highly specialized, skilled labor to reduce carbon footprint, I doubt that it's worth it unless the electricity you save costs more than the specialized labor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506368</id>
	<title>Unfair</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261301640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is true that PHP and similar script languages are very slow when it comes to number crunching etc. But serving web pages is not computing fractals or raytracing transparent materials, it's mostly pulling some data from the database and doing some string manipulation before presenting data to the visitor. For most of those things you call libraries anyway, like string library, XML library, SQL library etc. While those calls and some other gluing manipulations are faster in C++, the gain is not that significant (at least not 10x).<br>Like others mentioned, if you also consider caching, then performance gain from C++ is really marginal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is true that PHP and similar script languages are very slow when it comes to number crunching etc .
But serving web pages is not computing fractals or raytracing transparent materials , it 's mostly pulling some data from the database and doing some string manipulation before presenting data to the visitor .
For most of those things you call libraries anyway , like string library , XML library , SQL library etc .
While those calls and some other gluing manipulations are faster in C + + , the gain is not that significant ( at least not 10x ) .Like others mentioned , if you also consider caching , then performance gain from C + + is really marginal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is true that PHP and similar script languages are very slow when it comes to number crunching etc.
But serving web pages is not computing fractals or raytracing transparent materials, it's mostly pulling some data from the database and doing some string manipulation before presenting data to the visitor.
For most of those things you call libraries anyway, like string library, XML library, SQL library etc.
While those calls and some other gluing manipulations are faster in C++, the gain is not that significant (at least not 10x).Like others mentioned, if you also consider caching, then performance gain from C++ is really marginal</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</id>
	<title>Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For something that is deployed to tens of thousands of machines..</p><p>Is there some reason why these languages couldn't be compiled and optimized?  Code is just the programmer's will expressed as text that the machine can somehow interpret, right?  If there is so much PHP out there, why wouldn't/couldn't there be an efficient compiler (by which I mean something that produces executables and not just "executables that are really just an interpreter tacked onto a script")</p><p>The dearth of such compilers on the market suggests to me that the gains wouldn't be as great as claimed for the majority of applications where interpreted languages are used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For something that is deployed to tens of thousands of machines..Is there some reason why these languages could n't be compiled and optimized ?
Code is just the programmer 's will expressed as text that the machine can somehow interpret , right ?
If there is so much PHP out there , why would n't/could n't there be an efficient compiler ( by which I mean something that produces executables and not just " executables that are really just an interpreter tacked onto a script " ) The dearth of such compilers on the market suggests to me that the gains would n't be as great as claimed for the majority of applications where interpreted languages are used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For something that is deployed to tens of thousands of machines..Is there some reason why these languages couldn't be compiled and optimized?
Code is just the programmer's will expressed as text that the machine can somehow interpret, right?
If there is so much PHP out there, why wouldn't/couldn't there be an efficient compiler (by which I mean something that produces executables and not just "executables that are really just an interpreter tacked onto a script")The dearth of such compilers on the market suggests to me that the gains wouldn't be as great as claimed for the majority of applications where interpreted languages are used.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30512406</id>
	<title>Re:Assumes PHP Dev Effort = C++ Dev Effort</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1261413000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>In general code written in a dynamically typed language like PHP is harder to test than code written in a statically typed language like C++. The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time, and with complete code coverage at that. Misspelled variables and other minor typos anyone?In a sufficiently large project, all the time one might save not going through an extended compile cycle quickly ge</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>In general code written in a dynamically typed language like PHP is harder to test than code written in a statically typed language like C + + .
The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically can not catch until run time , and with complete code coverage at that .
Misspelled variables and other minor typos anyone ? In a sufficiently large project , all the time one might save not going through an extended compile cycle quickly ge</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general code written in a dynamically typed language like PHP is harder to test than code written in a statically typed language like C++.
The reason why is that statically typed language compilers catch hundreds of problems at compile time that dynamic languages typically cannot catch until run time, and with complete code coverage at that.
Misspelled variables and other minor typos anyone?In a sufficiently large project, all the time one might save not going through an extended compile cycle quickly ge</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30511632</id>
	<title>Re:10:1... Really?</title>
	<author>damg</author>
	<datestamp>1261408500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep, silly article, the CPU intensive work is already in C++; the PHP code is mostly doing I/O. C++ won't make your memory/disks/network any faster. That's why they need all those servers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , silly article , the CPU intensive work is already in C + + ; the PHP code is mostly doing I/O .
C + + wo n't make your memory/disks/network any faster .
That 's why they need all those servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, silly article, the CPU intensive work is already in C++; the PHP code is mostly doing I/O.
C++ won't make your memory/disks/network any faster.
That's why they need all those servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504276</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261328400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is ridiculous is that you are comparing the cost of the extra time programming in a single PC (okay, let's say 10 PCs) with the cost of maintaining 25000 servers all year when much more efficient languages (it doesn't have to be C) require much less horsepower and could suffice with 5.000 or less, as if they were on the same league.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is ridiculous is that you are comparing the cost of the extra time programming in a single PC ( okay , let 's say 10 PCs ) with the cost of maintaining 25000 servers all year when much more efficient languages ( it does n't have to be C ) require much less horsepower and could suffice with 5.000 or less , as if they were on the same league .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is ridiculous is that you are comparing the cost of the extra time programming in a single PC (okay, let's say 10 PCs) with the cost of maintaining 25000 servers all year when much more efficient languages (it doesn't have to be C) require much less horsepower and could suffice with 5.000 or less, as if they were on the same league.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505348</id>
	<title>Re:The REAL solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261336260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And capitalize on those default browser styles. I pine away for Times New Roman on the Web, and that bland Netscape gray from 1996 always drabbbed my day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And capitalize on those default browser styles .
I pine away for Times New Roman on the Web , and that bland Netscape gray from 1996 always drabbbed my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And capitalize on those default browser styles.
I pine away for Times New Roman on the Web, and that bland Netscape gray from 1996 always drabbbed my day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507820</id>
	<title>Facebook.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261315620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about just turning off facebook, the entire thing is a collosal waste of time. And while your at shoot all the users as most of them are idiots who are a waste of space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about just turning off facebook , the entire thing is a collosal waste of time .
And while your at shoot all the users as most of them are idiots who are a waste of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about just turning off facebook, the entire thing is a collosal waste of time.
And while your at shoot all the users as most of them are idiots who are a waste of space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30532356</id>
	<title>Re:He's not wrong.... But...</title>
	<author>ZerdZerd</author>
	<datestamp>1261500360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook uses <a href="http://pecl.php.net/package/APC" title="php.net" rel="nofollow">Alternative PHP Cache</a> [php.net] and has <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/88689/ApcFacebook" title="scribd.com" rel="nofollow">contributed</a> [scribd.com] a lot to the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook uses Alternative PHP Cache [ php.net ] and has contributed [ scribd.com ] a lot to the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook uses Alternative PHP Cache [php.net] and has contributed [scribd.com] a lot to the project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505438</id>
	<title>Re:Ridiculous</title>
	<author>misof</author>
	<datestamp>1261337160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of all, the article is just plain wrong, especially in the last sentence "Their servers are only a tiny fraction of computers deployed world-wide that are interpreting PHP code."

From what I've heard, Facebook does use PHP, but their PHP code is not interpreted, it is compiled using a custom compiler. And if you RTFA, it clearly states that Facebook developers implemented numerous optimizations that are not available in the default PHP distribution. There's no evidence that would support the "conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code" in Facebook's case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of all , the article is just plain wrong , especially in the last sentence " Their servers are only a tiny fraction of computers deployed world-wide that are interpreting PHP code .
" From what I 've heard , Facebook does use PHP , but their PHP code is not interpreted , it is compiled using a custom compiler .
And if you RTFA , it clearly states that Facebook developers implemented numerous optimizations that are not available in the default PHP distribution .
There 's no evidence that would support the " conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C + + versus PHP code " in Facebook 's case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of all, the article is just plain wrong, especially in the last sentence "Their servers are only a tiny fraction of computers deployed world-wide that are interpreting PHP code.
"

From what I've heard, Facebook does use PHP, but their PHP code is not interpreted, it is compiled using a custom compiler.
And if you RTFA, it clearly states that Facebook developers implemented numerous optimizations that are not available in the default PHP distribution.
There's no evidence that would support the "conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code" in Facebook's case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506224</id>
	<title>Re:Interpreted Languages...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261300260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is.  www.zend.com</p><p>With a proper webserver setup, your PHP only gets compiled the first time its viewed after a change, taking  a good chunk of the load of most PHP scripts out of the picture.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP\_accelerator" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP\_accelerator</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is .
www.zend.comWith a proper webserver setup , your PHP only gets compiled the first time its viewed after a change , taking a good chunk of the load of most PHP scripts out of the picture.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP \ _accelerator [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is.
www.zend.comWith a proper webserver setup, your PHP only gets compiled the first time its viewed after a change, taking  a good chunk of the load of most PHP scripts out of the picture.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP\_accelerator [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516846</id>
	<title>Some real benchmarks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261390200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think, these benchmarks of C++ (CppCMS) vs PHP based web systems are more then relevant: http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/wikipp/en/page/benchmarks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think , these benchmarks of C + + ( CppCMS ) vs PHP based web systems are more then relevant : http : //cppcms.sourceforge.net/wikipp/en/page/benchmarks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think, these benchmarks of C++ (CppCMS) vs PHP based web systems are more then relevant: http://cppcms.sourceforge.net/wikipp/en/page/benchmarks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516474</id>
	<title>Writing Facebook in C++</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason Facebook is not written in C++ is because they would still be writing it, so we would not have facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason Facebook is not written in C + + is because they would still be writing it , so we would not have facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason Facebook is not written in C++ is because they would still be writing it, so we would not have facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504580</id>
	<title>PHP vs C++??</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261330560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s like a cage match between a slow drooling retard and your crippled grandpa in his electric wheelchair.</p><p>In other words: Run it at double speed, <a href="YaketySax" title="slashdot.org">add Yakety Sax to it</a> [slashdot.org], and it&rsquo;s <em>awesome</em>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s like a cage match between a slow drooling retard and your crippled grandpa in his electric wheelchair.In other words : Run it at double speed , add Yakety Sax to it [ slashdot.org ] , and it    s awesome .
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s like a cage match between a slow drooling retard and your crippled grandpa in his electric wheelchair.In other words: Run it at double speed, add Yakety Sax to it [slashdot.org], and it’s awesome.
:D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896</id>
	<title>Oh, the agony . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261332780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, let's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000. If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down (assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code), or a reduction of 49,000 tons of CO2 per year.</p></div></blockquote><p>Before I even start, let me just say I am a C/C++ coder, I've never really touched PHP, and if I were going for a more abstract language, PHP probably wouldn't be it (mind you, I've not written off PHP altogether; I rarely do that with programming languages, except for FORTRAN, COBOL and C#).  I've got no favoritism towards languages; I use what best fits the task and try to make my software as readable and maintainable as possible.</p><p>First: where did these numbers come from?  I find it hard to believe them, as I have seen <a href="http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/php.php" title="debian.org">actual benchmarks of PHP</a> [debian.org], not just WAG of "10 times as slow as C++".</p><p>Second: if the author is so worried about PHP being inefficient, why doesn't he help improve the efficiency of the interpreter?  Remember, there are no efficient languages, only efficient implementations.</p><p>Third: has he even factored in the fact that higher level languages require less total development time?  What about all those commuting hours saved by the programmers because they weren't having to run their PHP scripts through valgrind's memcheck?</p><p>Fourth: why C++?  How about FORTRAN or assembler?  FORTRAN compilers are extremely good at optimizing code, and I'm sure you could squeeze out a few more cycles by coding it in assembly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As they only say that 'the bulk ' is running PHP , let 's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000 .
If C + + would have been used instead of PHP , then 22,500 servers could be powered down ( assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C + + versus PHP code ) , or a reduction of 49,000 tons of CO2 per year.Before I even start , let me just say I am a C/C + + coder , I 've never really touched PHP , and if I were going for a more abstract language , PHP probably would n't be it ( mind you , I 've not written off PHP altogether ; I rarely do that with programming languages , except for FORTRAN , COBOL and C # ) .
I 've got no favoritism towards languages ; I use what best fits the task and try to make my software as readable and maintainable as possible.First : where did these numbers come from ?
I find it hard to believe them , as I have seen actual benchmarks of PHP [ debian.org ] , not just WAG of " 10 times as slow as C + + " .Second : if the author is so worried about PHP being inefficient , why does n't he help improve the efficiency of the interpreter ?
Remember , there are no efficient languages , only efficient implementations.Third : has he even factored in the fact that higher level languages require less total development time ?
What about all those commuting hours saved by the programmers because they were n't having to run their PHP scripts through valgrind 's memcheck ? Fourth : why C + + ?
How about FORTRAN or assembler ?
FORTRAN compilers are extremely good at optimizing code , and I 'm sure you could squeeze out a few more cycles by coding it in assembly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As they only say that 'the bulk' is running PHP, let's assume this to be 25,000 of the 30,000.
If C++ would have been used instead of PHP, then 22,500 servers could be powered down (assuming a conservative ratio of 10 for the efficiency of C++ versus PHP code), or a reduction of 49,000 tons of CO2 per year.Before I even start, let me just say I am a C/C++ coder, I've never really touched PHP, and if I were going for a more abstract language, PHP probably wouldn't be it (mind you, I've not written off PHP altogether; I rarely do that with programming languages, except for FORTRAN, COBOL and C#).
I've got no favoritism towards languages; I use what best fits the task and try to make my software as readable and maintainable as possible.First: where did these numbers come from?
I find it hard to believe them, as I have seen actual benchmarks of PHP [debian.org], not just WAG of "10 times as slow as C++".Second: if the author is so worried about PHP being inefficient, why doesn't he help improve the efficiency of the interpreter?
Remember, there are no efficient languages, only efficient implementations.Third: has he even factored in the fact that higher level languages require less total development time?
What about all those commuting hours saved by the programmers because they weren't having to run their PHP scripts through valgrind's memcheck?Fourth: why C++?
How about FORTRAN or assembler?
FORTRAN compilers are extremely good at optimizing code, and I'm sure you could squeeze out a few more cycles by coding it in assembly.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507454
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30517456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30520416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504938
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30532356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30530004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30511632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504334
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30520184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30532584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30522612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506552
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30514100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_20_1433257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508040
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30532584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507400
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504696
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30520184
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30530004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505402
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30532356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504232
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30514100
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30520416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30508656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504392
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505882
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504942
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509472
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30507562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30513104
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505372
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30516472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506660
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505386
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30509498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30522612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30506844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30517456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30510414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30511632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30505676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_20_1433257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_20_1433257.30504510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
