> The rise in popularity of Laravel making it the de-facto choice of framework within PHP.
In the US.
> What edge does PHP still have compared to other languages?
Horizontal scaling due to the nothing shared architecture: need more perfs? Add a server. Which is an exact match with Kubernetes (replace server with replica). But usually your performance problem is not the executing code but the database.
> PHP needs to get rid of having Nginx/FastCGI as a requirement. Let PHP-FPM speak HTTP directly. If you want to terminate TLS via Nginx, it becomes a choice, not a requirement.
FrankenPHP is this.
Seems like your beef is not with php itself (aside from the compiling part) but the Laravel ecosystem. You may want to check Symfony and its ecosystem and what is being cooked outside Laravel.
any numbers to back this up? Laravel is very popular in EU Africa and Asia as well.
> Horizontal scaling due to the nothing shared architecture
Virtually no language that can be used as web stack has any restriction on horizontal scaling? Can you name one example?
> But usually your performance problem is not the executing code but the database.
the endless performance benchmarks would beg to differ. Sure, _any_ IO can and will be the bottleneck, but unless your code base is just 100 loc, you will see other bottlenecks.
> FrankenPHP is this.
so why keep fastcgi? what is the advantage over http (transport, not talking about static assets)?
> Seems like your beef is not with php itself
I do not have any beef with PHP or ecosystem. The complete top-half of my blog post is actually giving kudos to what makes PHP great.
My main take is simply that advantages that PHP had previously are having less impact in todays world :)
You just replaced ns memory accesses by ms API calls. Just the moment people were starting to maybe start thinking about performances again this train-wreck of power wastefulness had to appear.
One of the advantages of an autocracy: you don't need people's approval every 5 years so you can plan for decades. When you're right it is awesome. When you're wrong, well that's what the army is for.
The actual reality of how China works is much more complicated than this "select from a dropdown menu" system you are implying.
For one thing it's made up of fairly autonomous provinces that all compete between each others, for another the actual strategy has been heavily relying on extensive local experimentation to find growth models that can be applied nationally.
Nah he's correct, local government compete on implementation details, not overall strategy that is monopolize by the central government. Which has the same pitfalls (-see zero-covid or the debt crisis owing to gdp targets)
Also if any of the local governors / entrepreneurs cross a line they just disappear to focus on reading. Some of them might reappear after a decade having thoroughly understood the textbooks.
For example Jack Ma reappeared after his successful re-education.
I don't think he was badmouthing China at all. He's basically using different words to make the exact same point you're trying to make.
When there's no real accountability, in a reasonable timeframe, it's much easier to plan long term.
It's the same within companies. When the CEO assumes he'll be around for 5 years, should he shoot for the 10 year goal and reduce outcomes in the early years? Or does he just optimize for the next 5 years, thereby neglecting the long term goal?
If you think he's wrong then tell me - what do you believe would happen there in the event of widespread social unrest or grievances against the sitting government?
GP isn't "badmouthing" China, that description applies to every non-democratic country, one leader with the power, not the people.
Autocracies are great in the hands of a competent leader who plans the economy long term, and the grows of the country for the benefit of the country and society (look up "benevolent dictators"). They are not afraid of long term plans, or pleasing the population in the short term. He can break some eggs now to feed the whole country tomorrow. This is not something a democratic leader can afford. They live in 4-5 years cycles to please an electorate who looks for immediate benefits.
In the hands of an incompetent and abusive leader autocracy is a nightmare that's supported only by fear and violence against the people. These are most dictatorships. Society suffers but can't do anything for fear of being steamrolled by the army.
China is straddling a middle ground where the country grew by leaps and bounds, faster than anything else in history probably, but they also use a heavy hand to do this.
I don't think this democratic vs autocratic framing is entirely correct; most of the commenters here fail to mention the political ideology of capitalism. Pre-2000 several European nation had long term plans despite being democracies. The move to further integrate into the EU meant added political pressure to adopt more liberal postures like breaking state ownership of essential industries and that meant also no more of those medium to long term plans for those states.
This isn't China vs the rest, this is US Capitalist view of the world vs the rest. China in this present conversation is only an example of a country that has not succumbed to the desiderata of the unrestrained Capitalist.
Good point but the scale and success rate of the way China does it compared to any other democracy, or any country, in the past puts them in a different league entirely. They are on their 15th 5 year plan and look at the results.
A successful planned economy needs an autocratic leader, or a majority of people with foresight and willingness to delay gratification working together. There were very few moments in time when this intersection happened.
The last time someone had real planned economy in Europe was in communism time, with the 5-year plans and those were a joke, paper exercises to please the leaders. Those economies slowly failed. The planning you talk about post-'90 was relatively minor, more like a few ongoing projects.
Populists and corruption invaded the scene and promised the world now, making realists/idealists look even worse. Promise of short term gain is such an easy sell that it organically became the tool of choice for would-be leaders. Worse even, once the former opposition got to power they tore down what was built by the predecessor, started over to shape it in their image, brought in their cronies. This is human nature, the US didn't invent short sightedness or gullibility, they just exploited and monetized these common flaws in people.
That "or" is described one paragraph down. It's the most common type of autocracy actually because it's the easiest to pull off. Incompetent and corrupt leader, access to an army, biggest temptation is for easy profit.
Democracies are very susceptible to this type of leader in the short term. They start as populists and for a while it's easy to fool people into electing them. Until pockets and bellies start to stay empty. When popular support vanishes the army might step in to take that role and it turns into an autocracy.
Successful planned economies need first and foremost a competent leader who's not tempted by short term personal gain but mainly long term gains for the country. They're rare as hen's teeth.
I see this question a lot and as someone who has traveled to and sometimes lived in Hong Kong for the past 20 years, the truth is on a day-to-day level, there isn’t really much change.
I’m sure if you’re an activist there are huge changes. But as a regular person, life feels the same (even my local and expat friends feel this way).
Also one thing to be clear about is Hong Kong never had a democracy. The governor was always appointed by the UK. It was only when the handover was certain, the UK tried to introduce voting. The UK also tried to pressure Portugal to stop giving citizenship to the people of Macau, because the UK didn’t want to do the same for Hongkongers.
The eradication of democracy in HK is extremely sad, but unfortunately it was only ever leased from China and the UK did not have a sound basis in international law for not handing it back.
That's selection bias.
China was "lucky" to had the best strategy. But what about the dictatorships who stocked to the wrong strategy.
Though it is still interesting to research about Industry politics. In Europe almost all economics looked trapped into the capitalism Vs socialism trap.
Its complicated... You can't function without feedback. Imagine you have a pothole, a 0 feedback society would tell you that the contractor the government selected is perfect and there are no pot holes in ba sing se. If you actually go to china you would find that roads are genuinely pothole-free. Obviously there are feedback channels. You can't run a country with zero feedback. China knows this and they monitor a lot of things. There are channels (like they have online petition platforms, 12345 hotline - organised demonstrations are not allowed). Theres also a whole industry around gathering metrics from citizen surveys and online studies. Every government program is measured carefully and methodically. Is it democratic in the western sense? no. Will you get killed for reporting a pothole or flaw? Absolutely not.
There is also some indirect bonus: if people's healthcare is not tied to their employer then it's easier to look for a new one. Also if the system is done well, then many companies would lose the incentives they currently have for not giving full-time employment.
Floaters are protein debris flakes literally floating in the fluid of your eyeballs. They're not neurological. They become most noticable when moving your eyes. And over time their appearance changes as they slowly migrate, often times going in and out of focus.
You're right, but not everyone can tell the difference and not everyone can describe their experiences very well. There's also the blue field entoptic phenomenon (white blood cells!), and a bunch of similar things within the eye which can look similar to "floaters".
Yeah from a perspective of grouping it definitely belongs in the SB/SV/QQ list.
From a perspective of should I link unsuspecting people to a site with a SFW section that can be described as 'vestigial', or maybe 'decorative', I thought "better not." :)
I think the dissonance you’re running into here is that places like Reddit are not monolithic. Saying Reddit, basically a very large collection of user submitted writing, is _entirely_ non-fiction is not correct and ignores years of short stories, web serials, fanfiction, role playing, story telling, and all manner of creative fictional writing. I’d wager to say the bulk of such work on the internet exists under the Reddit umbrella, or is at a minimum cross-posted there.
I'd like to add: stay away from using arrays and user defined types. They feel like a good idea at first, but will become a problem when using fetched data in your code.
And another miss, if you're managing your servers: pgtune. The default postgres configuration is very conservative regarding resources so you can get good performance gains just by adjusting them to your server specifications.
In the US.
> What edge does PHP still have compared to other languages?
Horizontal scaling due to the nothing shared architecture: need more perfs? Add a server. Which is an exact match with Kubernetes (replace server with replica). But usually your performance problem is not the executing code but the database.
> PHP needs to get rid of having Nginx/FastCGI as a requirement. Let PHP-FPM speak HTTP directly. If you want to terminate TLS via Nginx, it becomes a choice, not a requirement.
FrankenPHP is this.
Seems like your beef is not with php itself (aside from the compiling part) but the Laravel ecosystem. You may want to check Symfony and its ecosystem and what is being cooked outside Laravel.