>Me thinks the speed and robustness of a compiled language would be
>ideal for any large scale web application. Not an interpreted
>language
>like PHP.
I agree
I also agree so far
- but it isn't beyond my comprehension! PHP is quick to write,
fairly easy to understand and has intuitive interfaces to the front
and
back ends.
- now this is exactly the opposed of my view.
I'd say that it really was the nature of PHP that brought
about the iea of a wiki in the first place.
Not at all in my view. Not for Casbah [1]. And I'd be surprised if
Ward's Wiki [2], arguably the first Wiki ever, was written in PHP or
the like (I think it was in C).
A testimony to the ease of writing in PHP is the large number of
separate wiki engines that have been written in it (relative to the
smaller number in things like C and Python).
These numbers may be true, but to me they do not testify to the
easiness of PHP. Some years ago (when PHP was in version 3 IIRC) I
considered using it for web systems, since yes it seemed everybody
was do it. I found the documentation, and the snippets I saw, very
hardly understandable. So much for easiness. I used Ada. (Actually I
wanted to use MAWL, but I was not able to install the compiler.)
So it seems views vary greatly. one of us is living in another
world :-)
[1] BTW don't look at my Casbah expecting excellent Ada code. It was
one of the first works in Ada by a guy coming from C.
[2] The Portland Patterns Repository at c2.com; incidentally, it
includes pages on Wiki History, and lists Wiki systems by language--
alphabetically, so guess which is the first entry :-)