Phoenix Network Forums

I prefer PHP becauese it is easy ...

This is not a commercial advert.

In most cases PHP will suffice, it is a very easy to learn language, and fast in execution. I have been using PHP since my web-dev day 1 and I am happy with it, as I evaluated the reliability and openness of a LAMP combo (Linux Apache MySQL and PHP). Other than that, both languages offer a lot on their own side, I suggest looking for the features of both and study them, I might post some links here later.

Well i choose PHP because its near to C, and is also a powerful language (more then asp i think) that you can use Sockets as the old C way, and things like that. And the best, its free.

It's good to see that internet also provides great and free products, and principally the opensource communities effort... its really a beautiful thing to see...

I really don't like the Microsoft's .NET family, because they're so heavy... and require that .NET framework... At least, for me all the Microsoft's web products sucks, since IIS to .NET Framework issues

demonio wrote:Asp is so expansive...
I prefer PHP because it is cheap...

You mean free ,right?

DjDarkman wrote:

demonio wrote:Asp is so expansive...
I prefer PHP because it is cheap...

You mean free ,right?

Well, according to:

http://www.php.net/license/ wrote:Q. What does the PHP license mean then, in simple words?

A. (Note: This answer should in no way be taken to replace the PHP license, it is intended to give you a general impression of what the license means.) Essentially, the PHP license gives you the right to use, distribute and modify PHP as much as you want, for both commercial and non-commercial use. You just have to make it clear to the user that what you have distributed contains PHP.

php is 'free' to use (as in free beer, free of charges), but, it could take some other tolls, like performance, programming time, or any other.

I prefer to look at it this way:
The time I invest in ASP > time invested in PHP for the same results, so cost/benefit, php is a better solution for me.

just explaining why he might have chosen to say it is cheap. Since it could have meant it is cheap (as flimsy or of-no-good-quality) which I am sure php is not.

Just my 1c (the other 1c fell off the table and cant find it).

Edit: Corrected some spelling errors.

1. ASP.NETis M$.
2. ASP.NET costs money.
3. ASP.NET is Windows only, since it requires IIS.
4. ASP.NET has -much- slower speeds, since it has to be compiled. PHP is interpreted. It's a scripting language.
5. PHP has the source availible to users, ASP.NET doesn't.
6. PHP is safes, because IIS has several security holes.
7. ASP.NET uses more system resources.
8. ASP.NET requires more code to do the same thing in PHP with less code.

Those are just some of the reasons to choose PHP over ASP.NET.

Here's a good comparison os the two: http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/ar ... l_asp.html

Nice article, you should also point out to read the following:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/pub/co ... _php2.html

Which is a followup to that article. Nice literature, thanks for the links.

Although I do not use ASP nor ASP.net, I feel it is used and well suited for 'some' tasks to someone, hence it exists, it is not there just sitting around, if you know what I mean.

And I guess, reason 1 you gave is not very well, erm... channeled, since the manufacturer's name does not have to do with a product being good or bad, it is the product itself that defines it.

As an example I have a lot of Microsoft Hardware (keyboards, trackball/mice), and honestly, they are 10/10 (not only one piece of HW, but various on different PCs)... BTW... I am speaking without bias here, in case some flamer/troll wants to nibble on my post.

Edit: Fixed some spelling errors.

slashfoo wrote:And I guess, reasons 1 you gave is not very well, erm... channeled, since the manufacturer's name does not have to do with a product being good or bad, it is the product itself that defines it.

Your right, that was just my opinion and not a fact. It's just that I disslike hard- and software from M$ and don't feel like supporting them.

And this is not an attempt to start a M$ criticism conversation.

Scorch wrote:1. ASP.NETis M$.
2. ASP.NET costs money.
3. ASP.NET is Windows only, since it requires IIS.
5. PHP has the source availible to users, ASP.NET doesn't.
6. PHP is safes, because IIS has several security holes.

Only true with the MS version, see http://www.mono-project.com/ASP.NET

Scorch wrote:4. ASP.NET has -much- slower speeds, since it has to be compiled. PHP is interpreted. It's a scripting language.

Whoever came up with that was rather boneheaded. Both .Net and PHP are interpreted. .Net uses the CLR and PHP uses the Zend compiler. As for which one is faster, I would guess PHP is slightly faster, but you should wait for more serious benchmarks before you say too much.

trick wrote:Whoever came up with that was rather boneheaded. Both .Net and PHP are interpreted. .Net uses the CLR and PHP uses the Zend compiler. As for which one is faster, I would guess PHP is slightly faster, but you should wait for more serious benchmarks before you say too much.

There's actually been quite a lot of benchmarking tests on ASP.NET and PHP, which showes that PHP can be quite much faster then ASP.NET.

* On average, the PHP version is faster than the ASP version, while the CGI (C++) version is more than 10 times faster than both PHP and ASP.
* The PHP version is only slightly faster than the ASP version for smaller sites, but as the size of a site grows, the difference increases. This indicates that the PHP version scales better than the ASP version.

(http://www.wrensoft.com/zoom/benchmarks.html)

Under identical conditions, it was found that PHP was the fastest - about 3.7 times faster than JSP and about 1.2 times faster than ASP.

(http://db.ilug-bom.org.in/Documentation/HOWTO/PHP-HOWTO-13.html)

* ASP is said to be a slower and more cumbersome language than PHP, less stable as well.
* The biggest drawback of ASP is that it's a proprietary system that is natively used only on Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS). This limits it's availability to Win32 based servers. There are a couple of projects in the works that allows ASP to run in other environments and webservers: InstantASP from Halcyon (commercial), Chili!Soft ASP from Chili!Soft (commercial).

(http://www.php.net/manual/en/faq.languages.php#faq.languages.asp)

Here's a big benchmark between different laguages: http://chamas.com/bench/

Of all the benchmarks I've seen, ASP.NET performs slower, and sometimes much slower, then PHP. I've tried to get some information about this from the other part; ASP.NET's homepage, but I havn't found any sort of help, FAQ or manual there to help me with it.

Still ASP.NET is commercial, and yes, you can use ASP.NET on other OS's if you work a little, should have said that instead. ASP.NET is Windows-only by default if you don't use, for example, mod_mono, which will make ASP.NET run on Apache. But if you do, you won't get any support from M$, since they only give support to those who use ASP.NET with IIS.

And as far as I know, ASP.NET is still not OpenSource, which PHP is.

And about the security issues:
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/107/343013
http://forums.asp.net/368663/ShowPost.aspx

Now that trick mentions it, I guess he is right, somehow my brain was not working OK yesterday and I confused it with Java Servlets, which are NOT interpreted (Servlets, not JSP).

And a common 'rule of thumb' is that for larger applications, compiled code runs much faster than interpreted one.

And about 6, reading in:

http://www.php.net/manual/en/faq.langua ... guages.asp

as per trick's suggestion, it provides alternatives to ASP@IIS.

Ans I am also interested in some examples for 8 if possible.

About number 8: I was actually wrong there, ASP, as far as I've understood it, requires a lot, or somewhat more, code then PHP to do the same thing. Though ASP.NET has improved this and the needed code length to do the same thing is much less then it was in ASP, and if from what I've read, ASP.NET actually requires less code then PHP in some cases.

So the writing of ASP.NET was wrong, should have been only ASP, though the thread was about ASP and PHP, not ASP.NET and PHP, but I guess the intention of the thread was based on PHP and ASP.NET.

I prefer PHP

I think it depends how much money, time, patience you've got and what the site is there to do.

I prefer PHP for its ease of use. I managed to learn it and make my 1st site and learn it quickly. You will also find it easier to get yourself a host, an ASP.NET supporting host can be hard to find.

ASP.NET does it have advantages though, if you are coding it using C++ you can create really powerful websites.

If you are looking to do web programming professionally you will probably find it easier to get a job knowing C++ with ASP.NET, for an amateur site I would recommned PHP.

OK. From reading this thread its easy to see that PHP is far more favored. Unfortunately, I do not know PHP, enough, yet! But its in the making. I need some clever help from the more experienced (I think at least) of you PHP/*nix users.

But first I will comment on the original topic....(old) ASP sucks! I've seen some cool things with PHP. ASP.Net 2.0 also has some cool things with it. Go Mono! As of 2Q06 Mono 2.0 has established parity with .Net 2.0, including ASP.Net 2.0, XML 2.0, and C# 2.1.

OK, now for my request for knowledge... (I may have to repost in 'nother topic)

I am in a situation that... an association that I am a current officer for put me in the role of webmaster. We do not control the network our server is on, and we can't change networks. The our production web server we have to work with is Win2k/IIS 5, and does not support PHP. From their (Network Services) documentation, they support, "ASP, JavaScript, HTML, XHTML."

I also happen to have control of a *nix box on the same network. On this box I can install whatever I like. I want to be able to use a PHP web framework for the associations website, i.e. like Drupal. But again that box doesn't / won't support PHP.

A1) An easy answer one might say is just host it on the *nix box you have root on right?
R1) Well, we already have a well known domain name that goes to the other box, and NetServices won't redirect for us.

A2) Another might say, well just write a small script that redirects for you.
R2) I could do that, but the association doesn't want the address in the location bar to change from their nice & easy URL to a longer not so pretty one.

A3) Well just make a 100% frame that contains the site hosted on the *nix box.
R3) But, when someone clicks a link inside the frame, the page would change, but the address in the address bar wouldn't reflect it right?

OK, so those are some things that I came up with when I was thinking this through.

The thing that I want to accomplish is to host the site on the IIS/Non-PHP server and off-load the PHP interpretation onto the *nix box, I control, on the same network. Is this possible? Or, does anyone have any other feasible solution(s)?

Any and all comments will be appreciated...

Thank you.

JM