10 Reasons Why PHP is Better than ASP

Discussion in 'ASP General' started by Ali Bobo, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. Ali Bobo

    Ali Bobo Guest

    1. PHP.NET the greatest API resource known to MAN
    2. If you have a problem, someone will have already implemented a
    solution in PHP for you
    3. Syntax is better, closer to C, C++, and Java. Unlike VB where
    anything goes.
    4. To run ASP you need IIS on windows, which is not free, for PHP
    however you need Linux and Apache which are FREE!!
    5. Great built in support for ftp, email, graphics package GD2 and
    also MySQL (also FREE).
    6. PHP will run on Unix, Linux, Solaris and Windows. ASP is mainly
    only Windows associated but you can use it on linux with additional
    modules installed.
    7. PHP code is much faster, ASP is developed on the COM based
    architecture, this is an overhead for the server.
    8. mod_rewrite, need I say more.
    9. Advanced Perl-compatible regular expression functions and loads
    of built in support for regular expressions on the whole.
    10. Greater control over error handling, and more detailed error
    messages.

    http://www.hwhappy.co.uk/2006/11/30/why-php-is-better-than-asp/
     
    Ali Bobo, Jan 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ali Bobo wrote:

    > 2. If you have a problem, someone will have already implemented a
    > solution in PHP for you


    Although PHP is one of my favourite programming languages, I do think that
    some of these reasons are not so good, so feel I should "correct" some of
    them, or at least further elaborate.

    Regarding point #2, yes, that's often the case, but half the time their
    solution is junk and needs extensive rewrites to remove obvious security
    flaws. The reason there's so many free PHP scripts out there is because
    there's millions of PHP scripters out there. It may come as a shock to
    some of you, but not all of them are geniuses.

    > 3. Syntax is better, closer to C, C++, and Java. Unlike VB where
    > anything goes.


    PHP's syntax is better because it's closer to C? If anything, similarity
    to C's syntax should be classed as a disadvantage. C is a step up above
    assembly, but that's all that can be said in its favour.

    Of the C-like languages, C#, Java and Javascript are far more elegant in
    syntax than PHP. But if you want to see a language with a truly nice
    syntax, check out AppleScript.

    Besides which, ASP.NET (the latest incarnation of ASP) is a container
    format which supports the use of various different languages within it.
    Sure, VB is common, but so is Javascript. Perl within ASP is not unheard
    of. It's even possible to script PHP within ASP.

    > 4. To run ASP you need IIS on windows, which is not free, for PHP
    > however you need Linux and Apache which are FREE!!


    You do not need either Linux or Apache for PHP. There are various other
    operating systems and web servers that will run it. I happen to do a lot
    of my testing on Apache for Max OS X. PHP will even run on IIS on Windows.

    Whatsmore, there are various alternative implementations of ASP, some of
    which are free. However, much like with C#, a lot of people rely on
    specific quirks and extensions of Microsoft's implementation, so the
    result will not run on the alternative implementations.

    > 5. Great built in support for ftp, email, graphics package GD2 and
    > also MySQL (also FREE).


    MySQL is a pretty crummy database though.

    > 6. PHP will run on Unix, Linux, Solaris and Windows. ASP is mainly
    > only Windows associated but you can use it on linux with additional
    > modules installed.


    Contradicting point #4 yourself now.

    > 7. PHP code is much faster, ASP is developed on the COM based
    > architecture, this is an overhead for the server.


    COM-based ASP is pretty old. ASP.NET pages can be pre-compiled, allowing
    very fast execution.

    PHP scripts can be cached in a compiled form if you use eAccelerator or
    similar, but this functionality will not be included in PHP by default
    until 6.0 is released.

    > 8. mod_rewrite, need I say more.


    mod_rewrite is written in C, not PHP.

    > 9. Advanced Perl-compatible regular expression functions and loads
    > of built in support for regular expressions on the whole.


    VBScript as of version 5 (which is quite old now) supports regular
    expressions, but they're pretty limited compared to Perl's regexs.
    However, as I said earlier, ASP is not just limited to VBScript. Perl will
    happily run within ASP, and Perl's regexs are certainly Perl-compatible!

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
    [OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 17 days, 4:39.]

    Gnocchi all'Amatriciana al Forno
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/15/gnocchi-allamatriciana/
     
    Toby A Inkster, Jan 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ali Bobo

    Tim Slattery Guest

    Toby A Inkster <> wrote:


    >> 3. Syntax is better, closer to C, C++, and Java. Unlike VB where
    >> anything goes.

    >
    >PHP's syntax is better because it's closer to C? If anything, similarity
    >to C's syntax should be classed as a disadvantage. C is a step up above
    >assembly, but that's all that can be said in its favour.


    I VASTLY prefer C, C++, java, e to VB or any of its variants. Of
    course your can use Javascript for ASP pages, which removes this
    objection.e to script PHP within ASP.

    >> 4. To run ASP you need IIS on windows, which is not free, for PHP
    >> however you need Linux and Apache which are FREE!!

    >
    >You do not need either Linux or Apache for PHP. There are various other
    >operating systems and web servers that will run it.


    Exactly, that's what OP really mant to say. ASP is proprietary, it
    runs only on Windows/IIS. PHP runs anywhere.

    --
    Tim Slattery
    MS MVP(Shell/User)

    http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Tim Slattery, Jan 16, 2008
    #3
  4. re:
    !> ASP is proprietary, it runs only on Windows/IIS. PHP runs anywhere.

    Not so.

    Grasshopper enables you to produce .NET Web and server applications that
    run on Linux & other Java-enabled platforms using ASP.NET 2.0 controls,
    role-based security, and C# generics.

    http://dev.mainsoft.com/




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Tim Slattery" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Toby A Inkster <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> 3. Syntax is better, closer to C, C++, and Java. Unlike VB where
    >>> anything goes.

    >>
    >>PHP's syntax is better because it's closer to C? If anything, similarity
    >>to C's syntax should be classed as a disadvantage. C is a step up above
    >>assembly, but that's all that can be said in its favour.

    >
    > I VASTLY prefer C, C++, java, e to VB or any of its variants. Of
    > course your can use Javascript for ASP pages, which removes this
    > objection.e to script PHP within ASP.
    >
    >>> 4. To run ASP you need IIS on windows, which is not free, for PHP
    >>> however you need Linux and Apache which are FREE!!

    >>
    >>You do not need either Linux or Apache for PHP. There are various other
    >>operating systems and web servers that will run it.

    >
    > Exactly, that's what OP really mant to say. ASP is proprietary, it
    > runs only on Windows/IIS. PHP runs anywhere.
    >
    > --
    > Tim Slattery
    > MS MVP(Shell/User)
    >
    > http://members.cox.net/slatteryt
     
    Juan T. Llibre, Jan 16, 2008
    #4
  5. Ali Bobo

    Mark Guest

    A couple of years ago, I was charged with producing a comparitive analysis of
    ASP, ASP.Net and PHP. Have to admit the experience with PHP made me vow
    never to use it again...

    "Toby A Inkster" wrote:
    > Ali Bobo wrote:
    >
    > > 2. If you have a problem, someone will have already implemented a
    > > solution in PHP for you

    >
    > Regarding point #2, yes, that's often the case, but half the time their
    > solution is junk and needs extensive rewrites to remove obvious security
    > flaws. The reason there's so many free PHP scripts out there is because
    > there's millions of PHP scripters out there. It may come as a shock to
    > some of you, but not all of them are geniuses.


    There's that... And there's the fact that many of the modules written into
    the php engine are not built by geniuses either. Many are not thread safe
    and unless you're running in an apache-mode (every request siloed to a
    separate process) you pretty much take your life in your hands.

    And then there's the crappy release environment that comes with linux. The
    test box I had was a version of linux that was about 9 months old at the
    time. It came with php 4 from Redhat even though php 5 had been out a couple
    of years by then. (a sys admin told me Redhat muddies the waters even further
    by making their own mods to the "open source" packages they bundle, so their
    versions aren't the same everyone else gets.

    I was supposed to test php 5, since it was supposed to have great new
    features, but you couldn't *get* an rpm for a version of linux 9 months old.
    The user groups all said that it was *unreasonable* to expect an rpm for
    linux that old. They wanted me to upgrade linux with a clean install. For
    php.

    So I tried downloading the source and building from scratch. About 1/3 of
    the modules going into php wouldn't build from source. About a week blown to
    debugging other people's great open source stuff.

    > > 5. Great built in support for ftp, email, graphics package GD2 and
    > > also MySQL (also FREE).

    >
    > MySQL is a pretty crummy database though.


    MySql's not such a crummy database, but it does have a *lot* of quirks. You
    pretty much have to throw out everything you ever knew about query
    optimization for MySql. And to the OP's point, it's free.

    Of course, the .Net framework has a lot of the other doodads the OP
    mentioned in it, plus there's an open source community to fill in around the
    edges.

    > > 7. PHP code is much faster, ASP is developed on the COM based
    > > architecture, this is an overhead for the server.

    >
    > COM-based ASP is pretty old. ASP.NET pages can be pre-compiled, allowing
    > very fast execution.
    >
    > PHP scripts can be cached in a compiled form if you use eAccelerator or
    > similar, but this functionality will not be included in PHP by default
    > until 6.0 is released.


    That was one of the interesting parts of my tests, actually. I didn't
    spring for Zend Accelerator (which goes against the OP's point about
    everything being free), so my timing numbers were pretty much php
    out-of-the-box vs the others.

    I found that as long as you could keep everything in the underlying c
    libraries, php was really fast, but if most of your work was in the script,
    php fell *way* behind ASP.Net, slightly behind ASP, finishing only ahead of
    Mono which was a dog on all the tests.

    Then there's the bastardization-of-perl (and perl is a bastardization of c,
    bourne shell, sed and awk) syntax of php which I find personally repellent.

    More recently, I went to a conference for SugarCRM, a product written
    entirely in php. You heard the ususal open source mantras of "rock solid,
    fast and free" but all the questions in every user group session were "why is
    it so slow?" and "why don't you fix your bugs?"

    Mark
     
    Mark, Jan 16, 2008
    #5
  6. Ali Bobo

    Andy B Guest

    I had my experiences with php as well... it sucked.... In the time it took
    me to create 20k worth of php scripts for a website, I have created a 19.5mb
    website with better design and security. I was on a few mailing lists where
    people claimed that php was "secure". From my results, it is about the most
    open to hackers I can find. I had people tell me to keep all of the php
    files "outside" the web root and it will be secure. If they didnt know, most
    webhosts you pay for wont let you outside the web root. Anyways...off the
    soapbox...


    "Mark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >A couple of years ago, I was charged with producing a comparitive analysis
    >of
    > ASP, ASP.Net and PHP. Have to admit the experience with PHP made me vow
    > never to use it again...
    >
    > "Toby A Inkster" wrote:
    >> Ali Bobo wrote:
    >>
    >> > 2. If you have a problem, someone will have already implemented a
    >> > solution in PHP for you

    >>
    >> Regarding point #2, yes, that's often the case, but half the time their
    >> solution is junk and needs extensive rewrites to remove obvious security
    >> flaws. The reason there's so many free PHP scripts out there is because
    >> there's millions of PHP scripters out there. It may come as a shock to
    >> some of you, but not all of them are geniuses.

    >
    > There's that... And there's the fact that many of the modules written
    > into
    > the php engine are not built by geniuses either. Many are not thread safe
    > and unless you're running in an apache-mode (every request siloed to a
    > separate process) you pretty much take your life in your hands.
    >
    > And then there's the crappy release environment that comes with linux.
    > The
    > test box I had was a version of linux that was about 9 months old at the
    > time. It came with php 4 from Redhat even though php 5 had been out a
    > couple
    > of years by then. (a sys admin told me Redhat muddies the waters even
    > further
    > by making their own mods to the "open source" packages they bundle, so
    > their
    > versions aren't the same everyone else gets.
    >
    > I was supposed to test php 5, since it was supposed to have great new
    > features, but you couldn't *get* an rpm for a version of linux 9 months
    > old.
    > The user groups all said that it was *unreasonable* to expect an rpm for
    > linux that old. They wanted me to upgrade linux with a clean install.
    > For
    > php.
    >
    > So I tried downloading the source and building from scratch. About 1/3 of
    > the modules going into php wouldn't build from source. About a week blown
    > to
    > debugging other people's great open source stuff.
    >
    >> > 5. Great built in support for ftp, email, graphics package GD2 and
    >> > also MySQL (also FREE).

    >>
    >> MySQL is a pretty crummy database though.

    >
    > MySql's not such a crummy database, but it does have a *lot* of quirks.
    > You
    > pretty much have to throw out everything you ever knew about query
    > optimization for MySql. And to the OP's point, it's free.
    >
    > Of course, the .Net framework has a lot of the other doodads the OP
    > mentioned in it, plus there's an open source community to fill in around
    > the
    > edges.
    >
    >> > 7. PHP code is much faster, ASP is developed on the COM based
    >> > architecture, this is an overhead for the server.

    >>
    >> COM-based ASP is pretty old. ASP.NET pages can be pre-compiled, allowing
    >> very fast execution.
    >>
    >> PHP scripts can be cached in a compiled form if you use eAccelerator or
    >> similar, but this functionality will not be included in PHP by default
    >> until 6.0 is released.

    >
    > That was one of the interesting parts of my tests, actually. I didn't
    > spring for Zend Accelerator (which goes against the OP's point about
    > everything being free), so my timing numbers were pretty much php
    > out-of-the-box vs the others.
    >
    > I found that as long as you could keep everything in the underlying c
    > libraries, php was really fast, but if most of your work was in the
    > script,
    > php fell *way* behind ASP.Net, slightly behind ASP, finishing only ahead
    > of
    > Mono which was a dog on all the tests.
    >
    > Then there's the bastardization-of-perl (and perl is a bastardization of
    > c,
    > bourne shell, sed and awk) syntax of php which I find personally
    > repellent.
    >
    > More recently, I went to a conference for SugarCRM, a product written
    > entirely in php. You heard the ususal open source mantras of "rock solid,
    > fast and free" but all the questions in every user group session were "why
    > is
    > it so slow?" and "why don't you fix your bugs?"
    >
    > Mark
    >
     
    Andy B, Jan 16, 2008
    #6
  7. Ali Bobo

    Steve Guest

    "Tim Slattery" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Toby A Inkster <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> 3. Syntax is better, closer to C, C++, and Java. Unlike VB where
    >>> anything goes.

    >>
    >>PHP's syntax is better because it's closer to C? If anything, similarity
    >>to C's syntax should be classed as a disadvantage. C is a step up above
    >>assembly, but that's all that can be said in its favour.

    >
    > I VASTLY prefer C, C++, java, e to VB or any of its variants. Of
    > course your can use Javascript for ASP pages, which removes this
    > objection.e to script PHP within ASP.
    >
    >>> 4. To run ASP you need IIS on windows, which is not free, for PHP
    >>> however you need Linux and Apache which are FREE!!

    >>
    >>You do not need either Linux or Apache for PHP. There are various other
    >>operating systems and web servers that will run it.

    >
    > Exactly, that's what OP really mant to say. ASP is proprietary, it
    > runs only on Windows/IIS. PHP runs anywhere.


    oh so wrong!
     
    Steve, Jan 16, 2008
    #7
  8. Ali Bobo

    Leon Mayne Guest

    "Mark" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >A couple of years ago, I was charged with producing a comparitive analysis
    >of
    > ASP, ASP.Net and PHP. Have to admit the experience with PHP made me vow
    > never to use it again...


    I code for a site written in PHP and although it is very fast, it's a
    nightmare to work with. It's perfect for beginners and linux zealots who
    code in their bedroom by themselves, but when you start trying to do team
    development with it it becomes a nightmare.

    MySQL is also fast and free, but so is SQL Express. The 4Gb database limit
    hasn't been much of an issue to me yet. The stored procedure functionality
    in MySQL is incredibly basic and irritating to use, and if you are stuck
    with a MySQL <= v4 server then you'll have to use ad-hoc queries for
    everything. Something I hate doing.
     
    Leon Mayne, Jan 17, 2008
    #8
  9. "Leon Mayne" <leon@rmv_me.mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Mark" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >A couple of years ago, I was charged with producing a comparitive

    analysis
    > >of
    > > ASP, ASP.Net and PHP. Have to admit the experience with PHP made me vow
    > > never to use it again...

    >
    > I code for a site written in PHP and although it is very fast, it's a
    > nightmare to work with. It's perfect for beginners and linux zealots who
    > code in their bedroom by themselves, but when you start trying to do team
    > development with it it becomes a nightmare.
    >
    > MySQL is also fast and free, but so is SQL Express. The 4Gb database limit
    > hasn't been much of an issue to me yet. The stored procedure functionality
    > in MySQL is incredibly basic and irritating to use, and if you are stuck
    > with a MySQL <= v4 server then you'll have to use ad-hoc queries for
    > everything. Something I hate doing.
    >


    SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on a busy
    site. I don't know anything about MySQL but I doubt it has the deliberate
    connection limit that Express has. If you need to deliver a DB intensive
    site at minimal cost then an open source DB such as MySQL would be worth
    consideration. However, the potential extra hours of effort to get a
    reliable and perfomant solution when using something like MySQL as opposed
    to SQL Server standard ought not be overlooked as cost.


    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
     
    Anthony Jones, Jan 17, 2008
    #9
  10. Ali Bobo

    Leon Mayne Guest

    "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on a busy
    > site. I don't know anything about MySQL but I doubt it has the deliberate
    > connection limit that Express has. If you need to deliver a DB intensive
    > site at minimal cost then an open source DB such as MySQL would be worth
    > consideration. However, the potential extra hours of effort to get a
    > reliable and perfomant solution when using something like MySQL as opposed
    > to SQL Server standard ought not be overlooked as cost.


    No, you wouldn't use SQL Express on a big site, unless you wanted to start
    small and when the money started coming in and the database size increases
    you could buy SQL Server Standard (or workgroup) and install it, and then
    migrate your database onto it.

    There are better free open source databases than MySQL though, like
    http://www.postgresql.org/ people just tend to advocate MySQL because it's
    easier to use.
     
    Leon Mayne, Jan 17, 2008
    #10
  11. "Leon Mayne" <leon@rmv_me.mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on a

    busy
    > > site. I don't know anything about MySQL but I doubt it has the

    deliberate
    > > connection limit that Express has. If you need to deliver a DB

    intensive
    > > site at minimal cost then an open source DB such as MySQL would be worth
    > > consideration. However, the potential extra hours of effort to get a
    > > reliable and perfomant solution when using something like MySQL as

    opposed
    > > to SQL Server standard ought not be overlooked as cost.

    >
    > No, you wouldn't use SQL Express on a big site, unless you wanted to start
    > small and when the money started coming in and the database size increases
    > you could buy SQL Server Standard (or workgroup) and install it, and then
    > migrate your database onto it.
    >


    Its not the size that is really important, its the concurrent connection
    limit. You would need put extra effort in upfront to ensure your site coped
    with Expresses limitations gracefully (so that will be cost). Also how well
    a site responds as it gets busy may well be a factor in whether it is
    successful or not in the first place. It would be shame if the use of
    Express was the reason it failed to succeed.

    You might use SQL Express for a beta but should consider very carefully
    whether you want public deployment to run on Express.

    > There are better free open source databases than MySQL though, like
    > http://www.postgresql.org/ people just tend to advocate MySQL because it's
    > easier to use.
    >


    True but then the extra effort needed to use postgresql is again cost.

    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
     
    Anthony Jones, Jan 17, 2008
    #11
  12. Ali Bobo

    Ali Bobo Guest

    On Jan 16, 6:44 pm, Toby A Inkster <>
    wrote:
    > Ali Bobo wrote:
    > > 2. If you have a problem, someone will have already implemented a
    > > solution in PHP for you

    >
    > Although PHP is one of my favourite programming languages, I do think that
    > some of these reasons are not so good, so feel I should "correct" some of
    > them, or at least further elaborate.
    >
    > Regarding point #2, yes, that's often the case, but half the time their
    > solution is junk and needs extensive rewrites to remove obvious security
    > flaws. The reason there's so many free PHP scripts out there is because
    > there's millions of PHP scripters out there. It may come as a shock to
    > some of you, but not all of them are geniuses.
    >
    > > 3. Syntax is better, closer to C, C++, and Java. Unlike VB where
    > > anything goes.

    >
    > PHP's syntax is better because it's closer to C? If anything, similarity
    > to C's syntax should be classed as a disadvantage. C is a step up above
    > assembly, but that's all that can be said in its favour.
    >
    > Of the C-like languages, C#, Java and Javascript are far more elegant in
    > syntax than PHP. But if you want to see a language with a truly nice
    > syntax, check out AppleScript.
    >
    > Besides which, ASP.NET (the latest incarnation of ASP) is a container
    > format which supports the use of various different languages within it.
    > Sure, VB is common, but so is Javascript. Perl within ASP is not unheard
    > of. It's even possible to script PHP within ASP.
    >
    > > 4. To run ASP you need IIS on windows, which is not free, for PHP
    > > however you need Linux and Apache which are FREE!!

    >
    > You do not need either Linux or Apache for PHP. There are various other
    > operating systems and web servers that will run it. I happen to do a lot
    > of my testing on Apache for Max OS X. PHP will even run on IIS on Windows.
    >
    > Whatsmore, there are various alternative implementations of ASP, some of
    > which are free. However, much like with C#, a lot of people rely on
    > specific quirks and extensions of Microsoft's implementation, so the
    > result will not run on the alternative implementations.
    >
    > > 5. Great built in support for ftp, email, graphics package GD2 and
    > > also MySQL (also FREE).

    >
    > MySQL is a pretty crummy database though.
    >
    > > 6. PHP will run on Unix, Linux, Solaris and Windows. ASP is mainly
    > > only Windows associated but you can use it on linux with additional
    > > modules installed.

    >
    > Contradicting point #4 yourself now.
    >
    > > 7. PHP code is much faster, ASP is developed on the COM based
    > > architecture, this is an overhead for the server.

    >
    > COM-based ASP is pretty old. ASP.NET pages can be pre-compiled, allowing
    > very fast execution.
    >
    > PHP scripts can be cached in a compiled form if you use eAccelerator or
    > similar, but this functionality will not be included in PHP by default
    > until 6.0 is released.
    >
    > > 8. mod_rewrite, need I say more.

    >
    > mod_rewrite is written in C, not PHP.
    >
    > > 9. Advanced Perl-compatible regular expression functions and loads
    > > of built in support for regular expressions on the whole.

    >
    > VBScript as of version 5 (which is quite old now) supports regular
    > expressions, but they're pretty limited compared to Perl's regexs.
    > However, as I said earlier, ASP is not just limited to VBScript. Perl will
    > happily run within ASP, and Perl's regexs are certainly Perl-compatible!


    Interesting points you've made.
    Thank you
     
    Ali Bobo, Jan 17, 2008
    #12
  13. Ali Bobo

    Ted Dawson Guest

    > Its not the size that is really important, its the concurrent connection
    > limit.





    I can't find the documentation on that... can you point the way?
     
    Ted Dawson, Jan 17, 2008
    #13
  14. Mark wrote:
    > A couple of years ago, I was charged with producing a comparitive analysis of
    > ASP, ASP.Net and PHP. Have to admit the experience with PHP made me vow
    > never to use it again...

    [...]
    After reading your post it seems like the absolute worst-case scenario -- a
    person with little to no actual knowledge of how to run (or write apparently)
    PHP inside an unfamiliar environment is tasked with writing an objective analysis.

    If you had such issues with RedHat, why not just slap it on Apache on Windows?

    I'm all for pointing out the flaws in a particular language, but that's not
    really what you did, and it's very clear from the wording you use you were
    biased against it from the beginning.

    The real issue though is that threads like these serve very little purpose.
    Posting how PHP is better than ASP on an ASP discussion group is obviously just
    going to generate posters saying the opposite, just as you'd expect if the
    situations were reversed. I have gripes about both PHP and ASP because I'm
    familiar with both and frequently write for both.

    Call me crazy, but I use whatever makes sense at the time. If I'm developing and
    my target platform is Linux, I'm likely to invest my time into solutions that
    I'm familiar with and work well on that platform. It boils down to using what works.
    I think any reasonable developer would do the same.


    Chris.
     
    Chris Shepherd, Jan 17, 2008
    #14
  15. Ali Bobo

    mark4asp Guest

    Leon Mayne wrote:

    > "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on
    > > a busy site. I don't know anything about MySQL but I doubt it has
    > > the deliberate connection limit that Express has. If you need to
    > > deliver a DB intensive site at minimal cost then an open source DB
    > > such as MySQL would be worth consideration. However, the potential
    > > extra hours of effort to get a reliable and perfomant solution when
    > > using something like MySQL as opposed to SQL Server standard ought
    > > not be overlooked as cost.

    >
    > No, you wouldn't use SQL Express on a big site, unless you wanted to
    > start small and when the money started coming in and the database
    > size increases you could buy SQL Server Standard (or workgroup) and
    > install it, and then migrate your database onto it.
    >
    > There are better free open source databases than MySQL though, like
    > http://www.postgresql.org/ people just tend to advocate MySQL because
    > it's easier to use.


    Not because it's easier to use, but because there are such a huge
    number of hosts offering very cheap LAMP hosting.

    Postgresql had been around for donkey's years but dinosaur web hosts
    continue to offer only mySQL. Laught you got to, to stop from crying.
    Oh yeah, and why no Firebird database hosting? Given that both
    Firebird and Postgresql are as free as mySQL and both vastly superior
    it seems very perverse that web development should be determined why
    what cheap web hosts offer rather than what developers want!

    I looked at php and thought it better than asp but not a patch on
    asp.net, especially now that we have the MVC. If I had to do fully open
    source development I would use Ruby on Rails which is vastly superior
    to php.
     
    mark4asp, Jan 17, 2008
    #15
  16. re:
    !> SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on a busy site.

    I don't know what you call "scalable", but I can tell you that I was boxed on
    the ears by the SQL Server 2005 program manager for saying precisely that.

    The PM said that SQL Express could take a large number of concurrent hits and not choke.

    See Joel on Software's take on this :

    http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?biz.5.481914.11

    <quote>
    SQL Server Express 2005 _is_ the real SQL server. Unlike MSDE, its throughput is not crippled by a "governor"
    (see http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms165672.aspx and
    http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archive/2006/03/09/545576.aspx ).

    The Express edition has limits on database size, ram usage (affects caching etc) and
    number of CPUs (it cannot take advantage of multiple CPUs). If you can live within
    those limits (and many systems probably can) then it will meet your needs just fine.

    P.S. It also lacks some advanced features (e.g. full text search)
    See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsse/html/sseoverview.asp
    </quote>

    I.O.W., a site would have to be a *really* busy site for it to outgrow SQL Express.



    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Leon Mayne" <leon@rmv_me.mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Mark" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >A couple of years ago, I was charged with producing a comparitive

    > analysis
    >> >of
    >> > ASP, ASP.Net and PHP. Have to admit the experience with PHP made me vow
    >> > never to use it again...

    >>
    >> I code for a site written in PHP and although it is very fast, it's a
    >> nightmare to work with. It's perfect for beginners and linux zealots who
    >> code in their bedroom by themselves, but when you start trying to do team
    >> development with it it becomes a nightmare.
    >>
    >> MySQL is also fast and free, but so is SQL Express. The 4Gb database limit
    >> hasn't been much of an issue to me yet. The stored procedure functionality
    >> in MySQL is incredibly basic and irritating to use, and if you are stuck
    >> with a MySQL <= v4 server then you'll have to use ad-hoc queries for
    >> everything. Something I hate doing.
    >>

    >
    > SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on a busy
    > site. I don't know anything about MySQL but I doubt it has the deliberate
    > connection limit that Express has. If you need to deliver a DB intensive
    > site at minimal cost then an open source DB such as MySQL would be worth
    > consideration. However, the potential extra hours of effort to get a
    > reliable and perfomant solution when using something like MySQL as opposed
    > to SQL Server standard ought not be overlooked as cost.
    >
    > Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
     
    Juan T. Llibre, Jan 17, 2008
    #16
  17. re:
    !> Its not the size that is really important, its the concurrent connection limit.

    There are *no* connection limitations with SQL Express.

    MSDE had a governor which limited concurrent connections to 10
    (it placed concurrent connections above 10 in a queue), but SQL Express
    doesn't have a governor.

    SQL Express will process as many concurrent
    connections as the server's cpu/ram/bandwidth allow it to.



    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Leon Mayne" <leon@rmv_me.mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > SQL Express isn't very scalable though so it wouldn't be useful on a

    > busy
    >> > site. I don't know anything about MySQL but I doubt it has the

    > deliberate
    >> > connection limit that Express has. If you need to deliver a DB

    > intensive
    >> > site at minimal cost then an open source DB such as MySQL would be worth
    >> > consideration. However, the potential extra hours of effort to get a
    >> > reliable and perfomant solution when using something like MySQL as

    > opposed
    >> > to SQL Server standard ought not be overlooked as cost.

    >>
    >> No, you wouldn't use SQL Express on a big site, unless you wanted to start
    >> small and when the money started coming in and the database size increases
    >> you could buy SQL Server Standard (or workgroup) and install it, and then
    >> migrate your database onto it.
    >>

    >
    > Its not the size that is really important, its the concurrent connection
    > limit. You would need put extra effort in upfront to ensure your site coped
    > with Expresses limitations gracefully (so that will be cost). Also how well
    > a site responds as it gets busy may well be a factor in whether it is
    > successful or not in the first place. It would be shame if the use of
    > Express was the reason it failed to succeed.
    >
    > You might use SQL Express for a beta but should consider very carefully
    > whether you want public deployment to run on Express.
    >
    >> There are better free open source databases than MySQL though, like
    >> http://www.postgresql.org/ people just tend to advocate MySQL because it's
    >> easier to use.
    >>

    >
    > True but then the extra effort needed to use postgresql is again cost.
    >
    > --
    > Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    >
    >
     
    Juan T. Llibre, Jan 17, 2008
    #17
  18. re:
    > I can't find the documentation on that... can you point the way?


    There isn't any documentation on that, because there is no such animal.

    SQL Express doesn't have a governor controlling concurrent connections.
    MSDE has one, but SQL Express doesn't.




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Ted Dawson" <> wrote in message news:%...
    >> Its not the size that is really important, its the concurrent connection
    >> limit.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > I can't find the documentation on that... can you point the way?
     
    Juan T. Llibre, Jan 17, 2008
    #18
  19. Ali Bobo

    Mark Guest

    Hi Chris...

    "Chris Shepherd" wrote:
    > After reading your post it seems like the absolute worst-case scenario -- a
    > person with little to no actual knowledge of how to run (or write apparently)
    > PHP inside an unfamiliar environment is tasked with writing an objective analysis.


    You're right, I had no enthusiasm for php from the get-go. As I said at the
    end, I've always thought it a syntactic abomination. As another friend put
    it, perl and php are what you get when you have humanities majors designing
    languages. No real coherent thought detectable in the design.

    > If you had such issues with RedHat, why not just slap it on Apache on Windows?


    First, because I had conflicting mandates, not of my choosing. Management
    dictated Redhat *and* the version of php and supplied the box.

    Second, I brought it up because the rabid linux-ophiles tend to downplay
    what a chaotic mess software distribution is in their sphere. As I said,
    they seem to think "reformat your drive and install a newer version of linux"
    is a reasonable response to a request for an rpm of a software package.

    And my experience with php was a little worse than average (1/3 of the
    source packages not building) but in general I've found at least 10% of
    source packages you pick up don't build and then you're stuck with debugging
    someone else's software. Or you get one of these software bundles that says
    "I just depend on these 10 other open source packages you have to have before
    you build me..." which increases your chances that you have to debug at least
    one of them because the crap won't build.

    When you go to linux users' groups with questions on why the crap won't
    build, you usually get "RTFM, jerk!" or "Not my problem, it built on *my*
    machine."

    Paradoxically, you often have much better luck just grabbing an installer
    for the windows version of these things than the original linux one.

    Using php and apache as examples, that's especially true. Because php for
    windows is organized with dlls, it's so much easier to slot in the extensions
    you want to use. The package for php on linux doesn't use so's; you have to
    build one honking executable. If you want to add a module, you have to
    rebuild the php engine.

    I admit I haven't made so many points about the language as what's under the
    hood, but half the OP's points were unrelated to the language as well.

    > The real issue though is that threads like these serve very little purpose.
    > Posting how PHP is better than ASP on an ASP discussion group is obviously just
    > going to generate posters saying the opposite, just as you'd expect if the
    > situations were reversed. I have gripes about both PHP and ASP because I'm
    > familiar with both and frequently write for both.


    Yeah, the OP was obviously trolling. This thread has made some interesting
    points, though.

    I'm less familiar with php than ASP, and I suppose I should also mention
    that I consider VBScript (and vb) a syntactic abomination too. When I do
    ASP, I usually opt for server-side jscript if I'm not using ASP.Net and C#.
    There are only 2 features I can think of that work better in vbscript than
    jscript.

    > Call me crazy, but I use whatever makes sense at the time. If I'm developing and
    > my target platform is Linux, I'm likely to invest my time into solutions that
    > I'm familiar with and work well on that platform. It boils down to using what works.
    > I think any reasonable developer would do the same.


    I agree with the same basic sentiment. Use what works where you are. I
    haven't had to work in Linux for a while, but the big disappointment for me
    was that Mono was such a dog. If it worked at all reasonably, it would be
    nice to have a good implementation language cross-platform, but it's
    performance was so bad there was no way it could be considered for anything.

    Mark
     
    Mark, Jan 17, 2008
    #19
  20. Ali Bobo

    Leon Mayne Guest

    "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > P.S. It also lacks some advanced features (e.g. full text search)


    SQL Express advanced supports full text (also free)
     
    Leon Mayne, Jan 17, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,225
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  2. Peter Bencsik
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    878
  3. Toby A Inkster

    Re: 10 Reasons Why PHP is Better than ASP

    Toby A Inkster, Jan 16, 2008, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    929
    Anthony Jones
    Jan 17, 2008
  4. Rajive Narain
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,081
    Rajive Narain
    Sep 18, 2009
  5. Philippe Faes
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    3,047
    Philippe Faes
    Jul 13, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page