Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PHP 5 Released; PHP Compiler, Too

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the pronounced-like-it's-spelled dept.

524

TheTomcat writes "After years of anticipation, PHP 5 was released today. This release represents a milestone in the evolution of PHP. It sports the new Zend Engine II, a completely re-worked object model, and many many new features. Check it and the changelog out." In other PHP news, remote_bob writes "There have been many attempts, like BinaryPHP and PASM, but finally there is a complete compiler for PHP. The Roadsend compiler produces standalone, native executables, and supports the entire PHP language (but not all extensions). It uses Bigloo Scheme to do its job, a variant of Lisp, the language that Paul Graham writes about. Benchmarks say that performance is pretty good. Is this another sign that dynamic languages are the future?"

cancel ×

524 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So it is out... (3, Insightful)

Necromutant (656140) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691688)

...but who will use it for another year or two?

Re:So it is out... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691694)

I hope it dies. Stupid girly toy language.

Re:So it is out... (1)

Necromutant (656140) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691712)

Eh... I wasn't saying that, I love PHP! Use it every day. I am sure that PHP 4 will get alot more use for most before they start in on 5. I know that is how it will more than likely play out where I work.

Re:So it is out... (0)

Barryke (772876) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691727)

Enlighten me, please. Whats wrong with php?
Or just upset you spend all that time learning asp, while you could php-enable yourself in a week?

Re:So it is out... (0)

Barryke (772876) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691747)

sorry seems i reply'd to the wrong post :S

Re:So it is out... (0)

Barryke (772876) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691779)

Doom on my eyes. It WAS the correct post =] and i (seem to) suck.

Goodbye Perl? (3, Interesting)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691691)

This may well sever my last remaining link with Perl. While I used to ride the camel for web and shell scripting, I've now moved entirely to php for the web, and mostly php for shell scripting, with Perl used when its extra speed is useful. Presumably compiled php will eclipse Perl for scripting use now though, so (on Linux at least) I'll probably convert fully. Pity I have to stick with sed, awk and shell scripts on our old HPUX servers though...

Re:Goodbye Perl? (5, Interesting)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691748)

I agree, this makes it hard to justify something besides PHP in a lot of situations.

It's too bad the compiler is $399 per year, and only currently available on Linux. If it was a little less, and not licensed annually, I'd be uninstalling a lot of other development tools right now.

Re:Goodbye Perl? (2, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691982)

$399 per year for nothing more than a compiler puts it at roughly at the same price as the entire Microsoft Visual Studio... seeing that you get about 2-3 years out of the typical VS release.

Re:Goodbye Perl? (2, Interesting)

defsdoor (737019) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691805)

I thought I was the only person that used php for scripting too. I've got a landline call rating system that runs superbly written entirely in php.
It started out as a prototype but worked so well and fast that it stayed.

Re:Goodbye Perl? (0)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691871)

I thought I was the only person that used php for scripting too.

Me too - I've been using PHP for command-line stuff at least as much as I have for web interfaces, and even then I tend to try to design the PHP code so that as much as possible of it can be useful outside of a "web page" context.

So, how much longer until someone writes a whole shell in PHP?...

Re:Goodbye Perl? (1, Troll)

brunorc (165580) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691830)

For Perl it's not only speed, but regexp power (to name one of its advantages). And if you dip into some more sophisticated Perl engines (Apache::ASP, Embperl or Mason) you'll find that Perl - as a language - gives one flexibility and scalability. For example, when a lot of engines are at their top, Mason just begins to spread its wings. I started my web scripting with PHP, then came to CGI, and now I'm using Apache::ASP and Mason.

And I simply don't understand why there is no difference between array and scalar.

Re:Goodbye Perl? (5, Informative)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691854)

Any decent language has full PCRE support these days. Perls days as regular expression king are in the past. Sure it may have set the standard for how it's done, but now it's no longer a selling point. Plenty of other nicer [rubylang.org] languages [python.org] exist. [php.net]

Re:Goodbye Perl? (2, Insightful)

MourningBlade (182180) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691981)

Any decent language has full PCRE support these days. Perls days as regular expression king are in the past. Sure it may have set the standard for how it's done, but now it's no longer a selling point. Plenty of other nicer languages exist.

C has full PCRE support. That doesn't mean its regexp support is royal.

One of Perl's advantages is just how tightly integrated into the language regexps are. I haven't seen PHP5 yet, I hope it's better than PHP4. I'm just saying that PCRE support does not a good regexp language make.

Re:Goodbye Perl? (3, Insightful)

mentatchris (585868) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691891)

Perl is still an excellent option IMHO. For me, the most important feature of a language is the amount of support available. Perl has so much documentation scattered around the web, it's usually very easy to find an example or get help with a problem. Also, the books are now all on version 2+, meaning most of the bugs have been worked out. With my Safari access, I have years of resources at my disposal. While I appreciate all that PHP offers, I still haven't been convinced that it is good enough to make me switch. The resources out in the community are far too attractive for me to fight my way back up the learning curve.

Plus, is there any greater comedian in the community than Larry Wall?

Re:Goodbye Perl? (3, Interesting)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691980)

I don't think there's much of a learning curve going from Perl to PHP - the other way there would be though! PHP closely resembles Perl in many ways - it has certainly been influenced by it to a greater extent than any other language I can think of.

I've been using Perl for around 10(?) years and while I appreciate its regex engine is faster than PHP, and the CPAN modules offer things PHP doesn't have (at present), you can put almost any web app together far faster with PHP than Perl. IMV this also goes for most database driven shell scripts.

Re:Goodbye Perl? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691947)

Completely offtopic, but you are pointing to "http://www.javascript-games.org/" as your website, but this domain name is not registered... Weird. Are you the seller?

Re:Goodbye Perl? (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691986)

Heh! That was my domain - I forgot to re-register it and some other outfit has snapped it up I think (it was getting a tonne of traffic too...) Screwed up there...

Let the PHP flame war begin! (1, Funny)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691693)

Let the PHP flame war begin!

While I use PHP quite a bit, I think I'll wait a few months / versions befor deploying this...

Re:Let the PHP flame war begin! (4, Funny)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691903)

I would prefer to say "Begun, the PHP flame war has".

Thanks PHP team (3, Informative)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691698)

Doing PHP development has been my main source of income for a couple of years, the new release will make my life much easier, especially the new OOP model, let's just hope that web hosts will upgrade soon.

Thanks again PHP team!

holy shit batman! (-1, Troll)

nukka (777713) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691699)

woah! now i can start rewriting my hello world in with new features!

Re:holy shit batman! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691762)

now you have something to do for the next 10 hours! please dont rack yourself on this one...

<? echo "hello world!"; ?>

Re:holy shit batman! (1)

XO (250276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691989)

c'mon, be more efficient..
<?="hello, world!"?>
there you go. much better.

Re:holy shit batman! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691782)

Why are the bodies in the freezer? Is this good or is this whack?

Re:holy shit batman! (-1, Troll)

nukka (777713) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691795)

its a stupid sig. get over it you tard, or is the only thing you have to do all day is eat, shit, and pick at others sigs?

Short answer... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691700)

Is this another sign that dynamic languages are the future?

Yes.

flamebait (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691703)

damn flamebaiter he beat me to it.
yrrab

YOUR MUM LICKS MY BOTTY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691704)

fifth post cuntys.

sdfsdf
sd
What is it all about `POst comment'? Is it good or is it whack? Calcgamnes stylee

Im fucked.

PHP is moving in the right direction (4, Insightful)

jbellis (142590) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691709)

PHP5 looks a lot cleaner than 4, at the expense of backwards compatibility. Some will probably make a lot of noise about this latter, but it's necessary when changing (improving) the language this much.

Remember, nobody's forcing you to upgrade that site running perfectly well under php4, and you probably shouldn't.

Re:PHP is moving in the right direction (5, Informative)

andig (139527) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691743)

One of our design goals for PHP 5, was to keep backwards compatibility as much as possible. Actually most PHP 4 sites run out of the box with PHP 5. If there are problems, there's a compatibility mode (configurable via php.ini) which makes the object-oriented model behave the same as in PHP 4.
Bottom-line: Very few people will have problems doing the upgrade. Of course you should thoroughly test your site before upgrading.

Re:PHP is moving in the right direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691806)

Mod parent up, this person appears to be none other than Andi Gutmans [zend.com] , also known as the ND in ZEND, co-creator of PHP!

Re:PHP is moving in the right direction (4, Interesting)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691827)

I can vouch that, to the extent that I've been trying it, all of my PHP4-developed code has been working fine with the PHP5 interpreter so far. As andig suggests above, I suspect that only a few cases where someone relies heavily on 4.x "quirks" will cause a problem.

I was slightly disappointed to find that the "native Java/PHP integration [php.net] " support was quietly dropped from PHP5 - I'd been wanting to play with that. Oh well.

Re:PHP is moving in the right direction (1)

Snoopy77 (229731) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691789)

As far as I understand it, backwards compatibility was not sacrificed, perhaps given a couple of slaps in the face but most php4 sites should be able to run in a php5 environment.

Re:PHP is moving in the right direction (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691826)

But, unless you plan on using some of the new features in PHP5, you might as well stick with PHP4... no need to take an unneeded risk on new software. Let somebody else do the bug discovery... :)

Re:PHP is moving in the right direction (1)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691839)

Wrong. If you're using a shared hosting account for your site, you /can/ be forced to upgrade to php5. The system admins don't go around and ask every user 'do you want php5?', now do they?

Cross Platform? (2, Interesting)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691710)

How is the cross platform ability of PHP? Can I write an app un Linux and comile and run it on OS X and Windows? Does it need a runtime, or is it bundled? Seems like an intriguing alternative to .NET.

Re:Cross Platform? (-1, Redundant)

ergonal (609484) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691733)

It's a scripting language. You don't "comile" (sic) it, it's interpreted, and yes, code that works on Linux works on OS X and Windows (for the most part).

Re:Cross Platform? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691764)

Clearly you did not read the story submission, or you would have seen this link [roadsend.com] .

Re:Cross Platform? (1)

Aeiri (713218) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691781)

Pretty soon /. will just be another message board, with each post completely unrelated to the article because nobody will read it.

Can you not even read the TITLE of the /. article now?

PHP 5 Relased; PHP Compiler, Too

Re:Cross Platform? (1)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691783)

The new compiler (you know, the one mentioned in the news item) doesn't say anything about being able to compile on one system and run elsewhere, but it uses gcc so it should be possible to target another architecture, in theory. Whether or not the Roadsend compiler supports that is another question.

Re:Cross Platform? (0)

ergonal (609484) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691824)

Yeah yeah, sorry, I'll just crawl into a corner and die now.

Re:Cross Platform? (5, Informative)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691756)

Yes the official interpreter is cross-platform, it is available for *nix and Windows.

Check out the downloads section [php.net] at php.net for Windows binaries and *nix source, and here [apple.com] you can find more details on PHP under Mac OS X.

As for the compiler in the story, I haven't tried it before so I don't know.

Re:Cross Platform? (1)

Dreadlord (671979) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691784)

Sorry for replying to my own post, but that compiler isn't free, and it's only available for Linux, however, the mainpage says that Windows and Mac OS X ports will be available soon.

Re:Cross Platform? (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691907)

I personally know (mostly the hard way :P) that saying "It's all cross-platform! We promise!" doesn't always mean it *is* cross-platform.

However, a few months ago I moved an (admittedly small) webapp from Windows apache to Linux apache, and the only change I needed to make was switching all my include backslashes to frontslashes. Which I should have done to start with, since frontslashes work on Windows.

So that cross-platformability seems pretty reliable. :)

Re:Cross Platform? (3, Informative)

man_ls (248470) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691924)

Very cross-platform...obviously some things like file paths might have to be changed to reflect the filesystem they run on top of (/usr/bin/whatever vs c:\program files\whatever) but with few exceptions, PHP code written on any OS will work on any other one.

the past is the future (5, Insightful)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691713)

Is this another sign that dynamic languages are the future?

I'm starting to think there are no new ideas any more, just re-hashes of old ideas. Unix, almost 35 years old, looks to be once again the wave of the future. LISP is still teaching us lessons. And the command line is still the most powerful sysadmin tool we have.

Re:the past is the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691731)

And Turd Ferguson is still a funny name.

Re:the past is the future (5, Funny)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691850)

I think I might even start porting some of my code to punch cards, by the time they return to the mainstream I could be a 6-figure consultant.

Re:the past is the future (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691853)

I'm not sure what the term "dynamic language" means anyway...

PHP's far from the first language to have an interpreter and get a compiler, far from the first language to accept extentions, and far from the first language to be cross-platform... none of these are new concepts.

Re:the past is the future (1)

eidechse (472174) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691952)

I'm not sure what the term "dynamic language" means anyway...

Generally, it refers the type system; i.e. the language is dynamically typed (as opposed to statically typed).

Not to be confused (though it often is) with weak typing.

the past is the future - give us a brake! (1)

ongeboren (734626) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691937)

yes

I am particularily excited about Scheme.. a language that do not support loops like while and for loops in C.

But wait! Scheme understands a tail-recursion!! An infinite self-calling function that will reuse it's memory and never run out of it!

Great! Writing meta-circular evaluators with Scheme used to be a didactic masterpiece of annoyance. Now we get it in production for real work!

What's next? Perl compiler in Prolog?

Re:the past is the future (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691945)

It's important to remember that while each of these seem to be just rehashes of the old, that in reality major changes have been made, that make them much better then the old versions.

Now that at first doesn't seem to waylay your point, but it's important to remember that many small changes in the end give a huge result which is of the same scale as the paradigm shifts you were looking for. If you don't believe it, go back to one of the really old systems and see for yourself.

As for new ideas, well I think the distributed computing systems are coming up well now, I suppose the idea is quite old. But till not all to long ao implementation was far from easy or cheap. As such I think you could consider it as a newcomer then.

Quickshot

PHP5 (4, Interesting)

mfh (56) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691717)

Some folks were suspicious of PHP5, and being a longtime PHP programmer, I am very pleased with the changes and additions in PHP5. Can't wait to test it out. Personally, I'm not sure if I'll use *all* of the new stuff, yet I'm sure I'll have to play with the coolest additions for the hell of it, and sort out what I'll be using and what will remain vestigial in my scripts. I will add that some of the previous PHP version quirkiness seems to be fixed.

I am certain this is not the last we'll hear about PHP5 on Slashdot, yet I am only hoping that it's creative/cool stuff, and not security problem/exploit stuff.

I can't wait to see what kinds of changes I can make to my content management system [sf.net] that PHP5 will bring.

Re:PHP5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691990)

Sure, but can PHP do THIS....

http://siamesestew.no-ip.org/

I don't think so!!

Hurray! (0, Offtopic)

AcornWeb (770294) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691749)

Now all we need is for Cpanel to officialy support it and I'll be able to upgrade all my software to use it; finally ...

PHP Object Model (3, Interesting)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691760)

A good reworking of the PHP object model was definitely in order. Inheritance was a bit weird, destructors were odd to work with, and there weren't ways to declare stuff private.

The bigger question is compatibility. Will older code be ok? When will mainstream hosts migrate to the newer version? It'll be scary to find systems borken because of version updates.

As for a compiler, I'm not sure I'm comfy with the idea. Always figured if you wanted to write code for native compilation, you'd hack in C or maybe C++. Not that PHP wouldn't have its uses...as PHP is really handy and greatly increases the speed of development.

PHP compiler is nice, but expensive! (5, Informative)

MisterJones (751585) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691761)

http://www.roadsend.com/home/index.php?pageID=faq

$400 for the license, which is only good for one year. After that, it won't compile until you renew.

Doesn't seem worth it for the casual hobbyist...

Re:PHP compiler is nice, but expensive! (1)

YetAnotherAnonymousC (594097) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691831)

Yow. For that price it doesn't seem worth it for *anyone*.

And the benchmarks (1)

ElMiguel (117685) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691870)

That kind of price tag certainly provides an incentive for Roadsend to publish attractive benchmarks. I think it would be better to wait until there are independent benchmarks before we proclaim that "the performance is pretty good", as the submitter does.

Re:And the benchmarks (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691928)

Why wait? There's an uncrippled evaluation version available on the site for free. I'm going to be compiling a LOT of code over the next couple of weeks to see if it's worth the money (and I can see where it could be VERY useful for me!) I have one of our servers running at high loads around the clock. It was looking like having to convert some of the code over to C to help speed things up, but this may give a bit of breathing room...

Re:PHP compiler is nice, but expensive! (2, Interesting)

LetterJ (3524) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691954)

If you use Windows and want to put your executable under GPL (the mmcache DLL has to be distributed with it), you can use <a href="http://www.priadoblender.com">PriadoBlender< /a>. It isn't technically compiling it, but you end up with a standalone EXE and the PHP code isn't in plain text. I'm currently working on a version of Priadoblender that uses the Bcompiler extension instead, which will remove the GPL requirement.

Re:PHP compiler is nice, but expensive! (1)

LetterJ (3524) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691966)

Bloody hell. One day I'll learn to either type properly or preview.

PriadoBlender [priadoblender.com]

What the Frick is a dynamic language? (1)

skybuck (582727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691767)

Euhm a script language ?

Re:What the Frick is a dynamic language? (1)

brunorc (165580) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691844)

Maybe a language with dynamic typing? AFAIK languages with static typing are considered as more useful...

OK. C advocates, reload your rifles ;)

Been using it the past few weeks (1, Interesting)

killermookie (708026) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691769)

Ever since I picked up George Schlossnagle's Advanced PHP Programming [slashdot.org] as few weeks back I've been using PHP5 RC3 to get used to the new Object-Oriented layout. It's my first real step into using strong OO in my web application and I'm learning a lot!

Compiled vs Cached (4, Interesting)

chill (34294) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691774)

If speed and not closed-source is your main consideration, then how does the Roadsend compiled code stack up against interpreted code fed through the Zend Accelerator, the Turck MMcache or other caches?

mmCache is OSS and free (as in beer), which is a big plus in my book.

-Charles

PHP Compiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691775)

The Roadsend compiler isn't a true compiler. As far as I can tell it compiles PHP scripts into scheme and is still interpreted at run-time using a scheme interpreter.
The fact that it creates an executable file doesn't mean it's not interpreted.

Re:PHP Compiler (3, Informative)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691813)

From the site:

The compiler generates binary code that is executed directly by the CPU, avoiding the intermediate process of compiling to bytecode and running in a virtual machine

That's a true native compiler to me.

Re:PHP Compiler (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691846)

Link please? I've gone up and down the Roadsend pages and I see nothing to suggest this.

$$ for compiler (2, Interesting)

hkb (777908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691780)

Uhm, the compiler is priced at a low, low introductory price of $399. I don't think it'll be taking the *NIX world by storm any time soon, or cause mass adoption to PHP executables anytime soon.

Re:$$ for compiler (2, Informative)

NoMercy (105420) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691835)

Well that makes it pretty worthless.. on a plus side if they sell it there's likely support and other features which would make php more of a option in business.

And if they can do it, why can't we... how long till GCC compiles php code?

Re:$$ for compiler (2, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691872)

Well that makes it pretty worthless.. on a plus side if they sell it there's likely support and other features which would make php more of a option in business.

Not really. Most people interested in compiled PHP are working in the "enterprise" market. $400 for a commercial compiler is not that bad.

And if they can do it, why can't we... how long till GCC compiles php code?

I think most people who have the skills to write something like a compiler generally want to make a living from their work, hence the $$. But, I agree it would be nice...

Re:$$ for compiler (5, Interesting)

prockcore (543967) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691961)

Uhm, the compiler is priced at a low, low introductory price of $399. I don't think it'll be taking the *NIX world by storm any time soon, or cause mass adoption to PHP executables anytime soon.

The price is nothing. If you're running a site that requires compiled PHP, $399 is a joke. The thing holding the compiler back isn't the price, it's the lack of Solaris support.

Awesome! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691788)

Now that PHP has stopped imitating Perl, and started imitating Java, I can write some Java-look-alike code while still simple-mindedly sneering at that language as inefficient and bloated!

PHP sucks, go VBscript!! (0, Troll)

dj42 (765300) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691797)

hehe.

A Book Recommendation (4, Informative)

z0ink (572154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691834)

For those who are not new to php, but wan't a good primer for PHP 5 I would definatly recommend this book [amazon.com] by George Schlossnagle. Advanced PHP Programming was recently reviewed here [slashdot.org] and it was upon reading that review that I decided to pick up a copy. It serves as an introduction to OOP to those who are unfamiliar and does a good job in covering the specific mechanics of how things operate in PHP. The book even includes some good info on some Zend Engine hacking.

Am I the only one... (0, Flamebait)

jwthompson2 (749521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691836)

Am I the only one who is troubled by the blend of proprietary and 'open' systems surrounding PHP? I mean a proprietary system, Zend, powers PHP, plus to get best performance I'm suppose to license another proprietary system? I am a big advocate of Free Software [fsf.org] and feel uncomfortable using PHP even though it is a great tool because of the strange mixture of proprietary and open development. Maybe it's just me.

Re:Am I the only one... (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691855)

Am I the only one who is troubled by the blend of proprietary and 'open' systems

I'm with you. I am even troubled by using my computer, what with all those patents and proprietary things under the hood.

Re:Am I the only one... (2, Funny)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691887)

AUGH! And now I've violated your copyright by creating a derivative work by replying to your post without permission!

(I'll stop now. It's just too easy to make fun of the current interpretations of "Intellectual Property"...)

Re:Am I the only one... (5, Informative)

cyberlotnet (182742) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691857)

PHP itself including the zend engine is 100% opensource, You can download the source you can browse the cvs to your hearts content and see everything.

The products they produce to support the development of php the closed source.

You do not need to touch, use or otherwise dirty your poor soul with any "non-free" software to use php.

There is nothing wrong with this business model, get over it.

Re:Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691861)

The ZendEngine is free when used with PHP.

Re:Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691934)

The ZendEngine is free when used with PHP.

He's talking about Free not free.

Re:Am I the only one... (4, Interesting)

doe (64198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691948)

Roadsend is a development house unrelated to the PHP development team. I doubt that their compiler would make any noticable impact since they don't support many of the PHP's most useful extensions. I have not tested it but it looks to me that the people that would be interested in this are those that want to close source their own PHP code so I guess its only fair to pay for it.

Many useful PHP tools are open source. From the bytecode compiles such as APC and MMCache, debuggers (APD and XDebug).

I see tha fact that there are some companies out there providing commercial tools for PHP developers as a good thing(tm).

And the compiler is only $399.00! (1, Troll)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691859)

And the compiler is only $399.00! And it only runs on x86, no Sparc, no AMD64, no PPC and no S/390 support!

What a deal, what a deal!

Re:And the compiler is only $399.00! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9691898)

That's $399/year (for up to 5 people).

not trying to start a flamewar (5, Interesting)

abes (82351) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691862)

I used to really be into PHP. It was great for creating a webpage in little or no time. It's syntax, while maybe not perfect, was pretty good. Until, that is, I tried to start developing my own libraries, and ran into weird quirkiness with object design, and trying to figure out the best way to do libraries, etc. It looks like PHP5 might fix the problems I had with how objects worked, and I'm not sure if it was my own fault with the messy libraries I ended up with, or whether I didn't find the best way to do it in PHP, but I eventually moved to Python out of frustration.

I had avoided Python for a long time, as I really disliked (and still do) the indentation-matters issue. But besides that, and its own set of quirks, it's a really great language, and for larger projects I have trouble even thinking about going back to PHP.

I think the biggest selling point to PHP over other solutions such as Python is that its simple. You don't have to make a whole of choices. For example, with Python you have a large number of packages to choose from: Zope, mod_python, twisted.web, Python CGI, and a bunch of variants on these. While choice can be good, it can also be overwhelming (like how do you know which package to go with until you've tried them all?).

I think I am not alone with some of difficulties I faced with PHP. So while it's great to hear that PHP has fixed many of its bugs, I think its worthwhile for people to also look at other solutions out there.

Just my $0.02.

IonCube (2, Informative)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691868)

Speaking of PHP compilers, there's a good and very affordable solution from IonCube [ioncube.com] as well.

(no, I have no affiliation to them)

PHP5 is out... (4, Funny)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691881)

...does the FBI know about this? I have heard about some of the PHP busts in recent years, but all this talk about how 'powerful' this new PHP is makes me wonder how dangerous it is. It sounds expensive, too. I hope that this doesn't lead nice young kids, into a life of crime. Imagine, hords of young, glassy-eyed kids stealing stuff like...video games and movies just to fund their PHP habbit.

Damn kids.

"Student Suspended OverSuspected use of PHP" (4, Funny)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691915)

Imagine, hordes of young, glassy-eyed kids stealing stuff like...video games and movies just to fund their PHP habit.

Too late... [bbspot.com]

Dynamic languages? (2, Interesting)

JessLeah (625838) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691884)

What the heck does that mean? Is that a fancy way of saying "Compiled languages"? (I somehow doubt it) What precisely is meant here? Is a dynamic language "a language that can be either compiled or interpreted"?

Re:Dynamic languages? (1)

anim8 (109631) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691931)

dynamic language == scripting language

perl, python, php, javascript, etc.

PHP 5 Tutorials (3, Informative)

aint (183045) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691912)

For a list of PHP 5 related tutorials and articles check out this faqt [faqts.com] or simply look around the faqts PHP 5 section [faqts.com] .

PHP 5 Section on Zend.com (5, Informative)

andig (139527) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691925)

If you'd like to see what's new in PHP 5, we got some of the leading PHP developers to write about new extensions they developed.
I also posted the first chapter of my PHP 5 book in that section which gives an overview of what's new in PHP 5. This book will be part of the Bruce Perens series of Prentice-Hall and will therefore be open-source and freely accessible to anyone.

Compatible? (1)

mattwarden (699984) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691950)

Anyone have information on how PHP5 handles code written for PHP4 and below? And, just to be clear, I'm talking about first-hand knowledge.

Thanks,

Yahoo Store, of course, is in LISP (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691958)

LISP is a good match for operating on HTML and XML, both of which are really tree structures. Operating on trees works very well in LISP. That's what it's good at. Perl, PHP, and Java don't do trees well. You have to hammer the tree into an object paradigm, which doesn't help all that much. Perl's representation of a tree is rather inefficient, too. I do considerable parsing of large documents into trees in Perl. It works, it's portable, it's slow, and Perl is badly matched to the task. PHP is worse.

LISP's parentheses turn everybody off, including me, but the data structures really are a win for tree-like applications.

The future of programming languages: LabView (2, Interesting)

heyitsme (472683) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691971)

Dynamic languages the future? Unlikely. The future of programming is more likely in code that isn't written, but rather "drawn"

Many people haven't heard of LabView [ni.com] , even though it has been around since the late 80s. It runs on Windows, Mac OS, and Linux. The premise behind LabView is there is no such thing as written code. Instead of code, applications are literally drawn by dragging variables (controls, indicators) onto the block diagram and wiring them together. For instance, if I wanted to add 1 and 2, I would create two integer objects with respective values, find the addition function, and wire them together to an output (indicator - think text box). I have written entire graphical application suites/analysis tools in a matter of days and weeks instead of months (had I written them in, say, C or Java or $your_texT_based_language_of_choice).

The only issue many will have with LabView is that it is expensive. It is also closed source, but hey, so is Java. Anyone interested in rapid application prototyping/development or digital/analog instrumentation should check out LabView.

Compilation (1)

trifakir (792534) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691977)

finally there is a complete compiler

What does it mean finally and complete?

The Zend [zend.com] compiler [zend.com] is quite complete and AFAIR for flat-fee. Do you mean that it does not produce binaries but byte-code? Then neither Java nor CMUCL have compilers...

The biggest issues developers have with the PHP compilation:

  1. They don't want to sell their sources unobfuscated;
  2. They want to gain some optimization speed eliminating the parsing (this can also be achieved by caching);
You have all this since 2000.

I'm coding in php right now (1)

markan18 (718118) | more than 10 years ago | (#9691985)

I have to convert an old oracle 8i database on Windows NT with a client written in visual basic+ to Mysql on Gentoo linux. I use php to write a web interface to that database.

Now, with php5, my classes will get private and protected members which i missed with php4. I'm wondering about try/catch style error handling, will php5 have those? I'm looking at changelog right now, if you know anything about the goodness of php5, please let me know
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?