Python as replacement for PHP?

Bob Ippolito bob at
Sat Feb 28 21:20:49 CET 2004

On 2004-02-28 07:25:46 -0500, claird at (Cameron Laird) said:

> In article <2004022801225916807%bob at redivicom>,
> Bob Ippolito  <bob at> wrote:
>> On 2004-02-27 23:00:44 -0500, claird at (Cameron Laird) said:
> 			.
> 		[arguments against
> 		positions *I* certainly
> 		don't take]
> 			.
> 			.
>> All that said, PHP is a good language for a beginner.  Lots of books 
>> are available that approach the subject from just about any angle, it 
>> is trivial to setup (you don't have to, you find some $5/mo provider to 
>> do it for you, or you buy OS X,), and is so underfeatured that you 
>> couldn't possibly be frightened by its syntax if it is one of the first 
>> few languages you've seen.  That doesn't mean it's a good language to
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> "OS X"?  Panther, or Mac OS X 10.3, does build in an Apache--but
> as near as I can tell, it's *not* one which includes PHP.  PHP
> has to be installed explicitly.  Am I missing something?
> I'm not ratifying the characterization of PHP as "underfeatured".

By "installed explicitly", do you mean "turned on in httpd.conf"?  You 
may be right that pre-10.3 didn't include /usr/bin/php (I am not sure), 
but mod_php has been standard (just not enabled by default) since at 
least 10.1.

When I say grossly underfeatured, I mean the *language* not the *library*.


More information about the Python-list mailing list