philippewang.info

Web Site System

Nowadays, dynamic web sites are so often built with CGI applications, using mainly PHP, and Perl, JSP, ASP, Ruby (On Rails or not), Python, etc. Some others are using compiled languages such as C. I have never heard of anyone using Make or anything that is built to handle dependencies very easily. And today, I just thought of that. It's amazing, isn't it? (not that I thought of that, but that such systems are not employed) No it's not to most of people. People care most about that PHP/MySQL system... Because it's fashion or easy access... Well, that was at least my point of view when I first started PHP/MySQL a bit less than three years ago. Now something's sure: I don't like PHP/MySQL. But I will still use it from time to time because it's just easily available, and not too hard to write some code, even if debugging PHP/MySQL is like hell!

Some people, as I wrote in some previous posts are working on a system using Objective Caml: Ocsigen. Well I like their ideas. It's just really boring to write some code that doesn't make any explicit error but runs, and having to debug it. Using Objective Caml has the obvious advantage that the compiler will hit you right before you can run the code, and very few errors will be left to find. It's not that endless road you see when you are searching for a PHP error. Of course it's sometimes comfortable not to have the compiler telling you that integers are not like floats. But hell just program cleanly and use printf! Well, it's not the point I want to make here...

I was saying that people are not using Make. It's just a waste isn't it? A tiny bit of history: at first, people started making frames to lighten servers' tasks (and to use less bandwidth). Then they realized that frames were hell for the client, and that the cost of bandwidth had definitely decreased. So they put the frames to the server side. Well, why not! So the frames were, kind of, invisible to the client. The web developper had to do his work differently, but finally, we can say it's still the same... but not really. In deed, when frames were client-side, there was very few bytes that were generated that traveling as a waste of bandwidth. I mean that when you have several frames, and that there is use of CGI, usually, there is only one or two frames that are using CGI, others don't. Well, so now... The incoming of that stupid "Web 2.0"... It's not stupid, it's smart. Some are counting on that "technology" to win a lot of money... Well, they must be right on that point... But "Web 2.0" means the frames back to the client, without the previous inconvenients of previous client-side frames... Let's omit that JavaScript is an inconvenient, and let's consider it as something "good", or at least "not too bad"...

Ok let's go back to the purpose of this post. I was telling about Make. I use BashGXD (which uses Make and several other tools) to generate the pages of this web site. This is done locally on my computer, then I upload the pages to the web server. What I could do easily is deport the local editing of web pages to the server and build an interface with PHP or Perl or any other language permitting the use of CGI. So maybe I'll do it...

2007-02-20

:: philippewang.info ::

:: design & photos by Philippe Wang :: XHTML 1.1 :: CSS 2 :: RSS 2 :: stats :: contact ::
:: Best viewed with Safari or Opera or Firefox or Links :: No SPAM Please ::
 
This page was generated on Thu Mar 20 19:40:59 GMT 2014 by BashGXD