Re: mod_perl marketing

[prev] [thread] [next] [Date index for 2004/11/30]

From: Jonathan Vanasco
Subject: Re: mod_perl marketing
Date: 20:12 on 30 Nov 2004

People want benchmarks.  Little graphs that show "Speed", and why it 
matters to them

C is going to be faster for certain things, Perl for others.  Thats a 
given.
But over half of the speed optimizations one language has over another 
are useless in any given application.
If you give raw numbers, people apply them to the interpretations they 
already have.

People need to be told something is better than another -- for THEIR 
use.

An old argument for writing stuff in python vs java or c, is saying 
that python executes almost as fast, but is written much quicker -- so 
you tradeoff a negligible amount of runtime for a large amount of 
development work.

Thats a compelling argument to get people to use it.

I wouldn't know where to begin, but I'd suggest the following:
Spec out a small little project/exercise - for example
	a -	a webapp that allows users to register accounts in dbm or mysql, 
allows them to log in, and post a message on a whiteboard
	b - 	some sort of request processing -- url rewriting or something 
like that
Time the perl code and c code development
Note the lines of code each required (with and without standard libs)
Run them
	a - which one has less resources on the system
	b - which one executes faster
	c - which one handles more concurrent users

Then show why mod_perl is better based on those results.

On Nov 30, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Clayton Cottingham wrote:
> What I am saying , is if you want to open up the mod_perl market you 
> have to
> look at why people are not moving to mod_perl
>
> This is a valid reason for not coming over to the mod_perl ranks, 
> because
> some people don't see mod_perl as being faster/better than c apps

        -- 
        Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/
Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html
List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html

(message missing)

RE: mod_perl marketing
Adam Prime x443 16:19 on 30 Nov 2004

RE: mod_perl marketing
Adam Prime x443 17:00 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
merlyn (Randal L. Schwartz) 17:28 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Jonathan Vanasco 17:34 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Geoffrey Young 17:40 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
merlyn (Randal L. Schwartz) 18:03 on 30 Nov 2004

Authz foo (was Re: mod_perl marketing)
Geoffrey Young 18:19 on 30 Nov 2004

RE: mod_perl marketing
Adam Prime x443 18:23 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
modperl 19:23 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Frank Wiles 19:30 on 30 Nov 2004

RE: mod_perl marketing
Clayton Cottingham 19:34 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Frank Wiles 19:39 on 30 Nov 2004

RE: mod_perl marketing
Clayton Cottingham 19:47 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Stas Bekman 19:55 on 30 Nov 2004

RE: mod_perl marketing
Clayton Cottingham 20:02 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Stas Bekman 20:09 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Dan Brian 20:32 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Stas Bekman 20:34 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Joe Schaefer 20:58 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Valerio_Valdez Paolini 23:22 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Jonathan Vanasco 20:12 on 30 Nov 2004

SV: mod_perl marketing
Arne Skjaerholt 20:25 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Ken Simpson 19:39 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Ken Simpson 23:00 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
modperl 19:41 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Frank Wiles 20:05 on 30 Nov 2004

Re: mod_perl marketing
Frank Wiles 19:53 on 30 Nov 2004