Re^2: Perl and London Broil: The future of computing magic?

>> Monks know that this is not a “Perl vs. PHP” thread ... and, Monks know why.

Well one interesting question is: "Why isn't Perl used as much as PHP is for web development"? It got there first. It had the limelight. I'd argue it's technical merits better than PHP: language, CPAN, community. But look at the usage statistics for languages in the web sphere and you'll see PHP way out in front.

PHP has proven it's usefulness in the web space. But why is it being overwhelmingly chosen over Perl for this task? Maybe monks don't perceive this as a problem. I think it's kind of a shame given the head start Perl had and technical merits of the language.

Comment on Re^2: Perl and London Broil: The future of computing magic?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Perl and London Broil: The future of computing magic? by TGI (Parson) on Feb 03, 2009 at 01:58 UTC
On cheap/free hosts it is a pain in the ass to get the various modules you need installed. Even worse, there is no easy way to cross compile your modules your own modules. So if your host does not give you access to a compiler, many modules are impossible to use. There is often no easy way to see what modules are available on your hosting provider. So portability between providers is unsure. In practice, it is easier to get PHP working and move it from place to place. Since there are 306,127 different module distributions for template handling, can rely on your module of choice being installed on your next hosting provider? The core of the problem: As a skilled Perl programmer, it was easier for me to learn enough PHP to get a quick site together than it was to negotiate with the hosting provider to get a decent Perl kit. How much worse would the trade-off be for someone who didn't already know Perl? TGI says moo	[reply]
Re^3: Perl and London Broil: The future of computing magic? by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Feb 03, 2009 at 03:39 UTC
I think that PHP was definitely “more approachable.” Also, it's easy to conceptualize the notion that “the right\|easiest thing to do is to just mix the SQL right in there with the HTML, since all you're really doing is CRUD.” “Easy to conceptualize,” “easy to deliver release 1.0” ... and utterly impossible to maintain as things change. Two or three years out, the app is `$DEAD $BEEF`. Everything's so tightly coupled together that you can't change either the presentation or the data-structure without starting over. I'm not sure that it's really PHP's fault, though, so much as the (lack of) experience of the programmers... And I'm sure that there must be some “dazzlingly good” PHP out there. I just haven't seen any yet.
Re^3: Perl and London Broil: The future of computing magic? by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Feb 03, 2009 at 03:37 UTC
I think that PHP was definitely “more approachable.” Also, it's easy to conceptualize the notion that “the right\|easiest thing to do is to just mix the SQL right in there with the HTML, since all you're really doing is CRUD.” “Easy to conceptualize,” “easy to deliver release 1.0” ... and utterly impossible to maintain as things change. Two or three years out, the app is dead beef. I'm not sure that it's really PHP's fault, though, so much as the (lack of) experience of the programmers...