in reply to Re: Web aps with Perl (6) vs. Longhorn and the Windows API?
in thread Web aps with Perl (6) vs. Longhorn and the Windows API?

I should think a good middle-point is having each individual script having it's own interpreter -- what's wrong with that? (You could have them last forever, and rely on the kernel to swap them out as it wishes, or you could tear them down if they aren't used for a fixed period.)


Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

  • Comment on Re^2: Web aps with Perl (6) vs. Longhorn and the Windows API?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Web aps with Perl (6) vs. Longhorn and the Windows API?
by Juerd (Abbot) on Jan 02, 2005 at 10:55 UTC

    I should think a good middle-point is having each individual script having it's own interpreter -- what's wrong with that?

    It's a good solution, and several programs use this technique. However, for things to work correctly, still you need to pay attention and not program sloppily. Another problem is that this puts very heavy load on a machine if you use one script per page (as is very common in PHP), regardless of what the kernel can do.

    Juerd # { site => 'juerd.nl', plp_site => 'plp.juerd.nl', do_not_use => 'spamtrap' }