You can see the slop through the headline. No need to click. Posts like this are turning the internet into a trash pile. Nobody needs this slop, abandonware.
Heres the template:
"I" <--- prompted some LLM
"built" <--- to generate code for a
"fastest" <-- insert specious claim here
"PHP server" <-- thing
"And I prompted the LLM to build a website" <---- link
Im sorry folks but this just doesnt cut it anymore. I dont think it ever did.
You don't need your database on a dedicated server. Not sure why the comparison table claims "$30 + DB server" when your web server is a perfectly good server already.
Presumably to remove it from the need to calculate. Everyone is using a different approach and one DB may require a lot more than the 30$ server can provide.
I'm confused why the copy you generated repeatedly boasts "no nginx, no Redis" as if those things don't exist independently of application servers for a reason, and as if building something that doesn't need these things (when deployed as a single instance) is particularly notable.
"no Docker" - so what? Docker is a tool. Running containers on Linux has extremely low overhead. No idea what this is about.
You didn't spend the effort to decorate the slop with your rationale for these choices, so I see no evidence that you built any of this.
One of the biggest shortcomings I often see with LLM-produced content, following a planning conversation, is that they misunderstand the breadth of the domain for which a detail is relevant or interesting.
So if it fixes a bug where function was accidentally deleting a file, it will update the function's documentation with "does not delete any important files", as if that's a key feature and not just one of a million things it should not do.
The same pattern repeats when an LLM is left to generate its own copy after a brainstorming and architecting session. It has no concept of what's important to the end-user.
The only LLM that does this wel (in my opinion) is gemini. if i ask claude to fix comments, it very clearly fails in doing so. Gemini actually seems to understand the scope of a task
Heres the template:
"I" <--- prompted some LLM
"built" <--- to generate code for a
"fastest" <-- insert specious claim here
"PHP server" <-- thing
"And I prompted the LLM to build a website" <---- link
Im sorry folks but this just doesnt cut it anymore. I dont think it ever did.
Now everyone can understand the math.
"no Docker" - so what? Docker is a tool. Running containers on Linux has extremely low overhead. No idea what this is about.
You didn't spend the effort to decorate the slop with your rationale for these choices, so I see no evidence that you built any of this.
So if it fixes a bug where function was accidentally deleting a file, it will update the function's documentation with "does not delete any important files", as if that's a key feature and not just one of a million things it should not do.
The same pattern repeats when an LLM is left to generate its own copy after a brainstorming and architecting session. It has no concept of what's important to the end-user.
PHP doesn't have a production grade built-in server like .NET's Kestrel.
As in there’s very little ways to fuck up a PHP setup.
You just turn it on and it runs.