PHP and ASP.NET go HEAD to HEAD

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by showme, Jul 8, 2004.

  1. showme

    showme Guest

    PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    By Sean Hull
    http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html


    SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is touted
    as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes a
    detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though a
    lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it still
    retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.



    SECURITY COMPARISON
    ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a long
    history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because of
    Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many platforms.


    So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code render
    block, <% %>

    comments?
     
    showme, Jul 8, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. showme

    Simon Harvey Guest

    Its a fair point, but to be fair the OO aspect is aimed at helping speed
    development rather than speed execution. Most sites don't need blistering
    speed and processors are getting faster and faster.

    The speed issue is becoming less and less of an issue for the majority of
    sites. I say this as a web host for many large sites including international
    airports

    Only one of our sites requires a dual 2.4 xeon machine

    Our database server is also dual xeon.

    Oh, and php is ugly imho

    Let the flames begin

    :)
     
    Simon Harvey, Jul 8, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. showme

    Patrice Guest

    The sad truth is that at some point you have to look at things against your
    own requirements to make your own mind as you would do for choosing a car
    (including both rational and unrelational arguments). That's life.

    Patrice

    --

    "showme" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:%23A4l%...
    > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > By Sean Hull
    > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    >
    >
    > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    touted
    > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes

    a
    > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though

    a
    > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    still
    > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    >
    >
    >
    > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    long
    > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    of
    > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    platforms.
    >
    >
    > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    render
    > block, <% %>
    >
    > comments?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Patrice, Jul 8, 2004
    #3
  4. > comments?

    Consider the source. Also note that a number of comparison criteria are
    simply ignored, such as development speed/cost. The most expensive aspect of
    development is the cost of developers (man-hours of dev time). While ASP.Net
    consumes a large chunk of memory and processor, RAM is cheap; hardware is
    cheap; programmers are expensive. ASP.Net is designed to give the
    implementers a greater ROI. This is the bottom line when it comes to
    software development. That is why Oracle is in so much trouble financially.
    It costs more to use it.

    --
    HTH,
    Kevin Spencer
    ..Net Developer
    Microsoft MVP
    Big things are made up
    of lots of little things.

    "showme" <> wrote in message
    news:#A4l#...
    > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > By Sean Hull
    > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    >
    >
    > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    touted
    > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes

    a
    > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though

    a
    > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    still
    > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    >
    >
    >
    > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    long
    > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    of
    > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    platforms.
    >
    >
    > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    render
    > block, <% %>
    >
    > comments?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Kevin Spencer, Jul 8, 2004
    #4
  5. I could not agree with you more Kevin.

    Programmers are expensive (at least here in the USA) and computers are
    inexpensive. I'd much rather crank out an entire site in half time time
    with ASP.net than spend twice as much time getting the same result in PHP
    that runs faster.

    It's an ROI thing and a time-to-market thing.

    Michael


    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > > comments?

    >
    > Consider the source. Also note that a number of comparison criteria are
    > simply ignored, such as development speed/cost. The most expensive aspect

    of
    > development is the cost of developers (man-hours of dev time). While

    ASP.Net
    > consumes a large chunk of memory and processor, RAM is cheap; hardware is
    > cheap; programmers are expensive. ASP.Net is designed to give the
    > implementers a greater ROI. This is the bottom line when it comes to
    > software development. That is why Oracle is in so much trouble

    financially.
    > It costs more to use it.
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    > Kevin Spencer
    > .Net Developer
    > Microsoft MVP
    > Big things are made up
    > of lots of little things.
    >
    > "showme" <> wrote in message
    > news:#A4l#...
    > > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > > By Sean Hull
    > > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    > >
    > >
    > > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    > touted
    > > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it

    becomes
    > a
    > > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is

    a
    > > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have

    to
    > > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And

    though
    > a
    > > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    > still
    > > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    > long
    > > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    > of
    > > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and

    compromised.
    > > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    > platforms.
    > >
    > >
    > > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    > render
    > > block, <% %>
    > >
    > > comments?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Michael Pearson, Jul 8, 2004
    #5
  6. And only think of maintainability... PHP is more Write-Only code ;-)

    Greetings,
    Henning Krause
    ==========================
    Visit my website: http://www.infinitec.de
    Try my free Exchange Explorer: Mistaya
    (http://www.infinitec.de/?page=products)


    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    news:#...
    > > comments?

    >
    > Consider the source. Also note that a number of comparison criteria are
    > simply ignored, such as development speed/cost. The most expensive aspect

    of
    > development is the cost of developers (man-hours of dev time). While

    ASP.Net
    > consumes a large chunk of memory and processor, RAM is cheap; hardware is
    > cheap; programmers are expensive. ASP.Net is designed to give the
    > implementers a greater ROI. This is the bottom line when it comes to
    > software development. That is why Oracle is in so much trouble

    financially.
    > It costs more to use it.
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    > Kevin Spencer
    > .Net Developer
    > Microsoft MVP
    > Big things are made up
    > of lots of little things.
    >
    > "showme" <> wrote in message
    > news:#A4l#...
    > > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > > By Sean Hull
    > > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    > >
    > >
    > > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    > touted
    > > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it

    becomes
    > a
    > > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is

    a
    > > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have

    to
    > > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And

    though
    > a
    > > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    > still
    > > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    > long
    > > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    > of
    > > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and

    compromised.
    > > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    > platforms.
    > >
    > >
    > > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    > render
    > > block, <% %>
    > >
    > > comments?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Henning Krause, Jul 8, 2004
    #6
  7. It is not a fair comparison (Oracle comparison), but I am sure there are
    areas where PHP is faster. Even classic ASP beats ASP .NET in some areas.

    Much of the benefit of .NET is not in the performance alone. Maintenance,
    which is more expensive than perf in most cases, is greatly improved over
    ASP and SO much easier than PHP.

    But, everyone loves perf numbers. SO much so that I have seen sites that
    were virtually unmaintanable, just to squeek out a few more cycles ... on a
    site already running well below the bar. I call that STUPID, although some
    may disagree! ;->

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

    ************************************************
    Think Outside the Box!
    ************************************************
    "showme" <> wrote in message
    news:%23A4l%...
    > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > By Sean Hull
    > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    >
    >
    > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    touted
    > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes

    a
    > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though

    a
    > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    still
    > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    >
    >
    >
    > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    long
    > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    of
    > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    platforms.
    >
    >
    > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    render
    > block, <% %>
    >
    > comments?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) [MVP], Jul 8, 2004
    #7
  8. Maintainability costs far more than perf in the majority of the cases. ;->

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

    ************************************************
    Think Outside the Box!
    ************************************************
    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > > comments?

    >
    > Consider the source. Also note that a number of comparison criteria are
    > simply ignored, such as development speed/cost. The most expensive aspect

    of
    > development is the cost of developers (man-hours of dev time). While

    ASP.Net
    > consumes a large chunk of memory and processor, RAM is cheap; hardware is
    > cheap; programmers are expensive. ASP.Net is designed to give the
    > implementers a greater ROI. This is the bottom line when it comes to
    > software development. That is why Oracle is in so much trouble

    financially.
    > It costs more to use it.
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    > Kevin Spencer
    > .Net Developer
    > Microsoft MVP
    > Big things are made up
    > of lots of little things.
    >
    > "showme" <> wrote in message
    > news:#A4l#...
    > > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > > By Sean Hull
    > > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    > >
    > >
    > > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    > touted
    > > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it

    becomes
    > a
    > > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is

    a
    > > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have

    to
    > > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And

    though
    > a
    > > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    > still
    > > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    > long
    > > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    > of
    > > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and

    compromised.
    > > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    > platforms.
    > >
    > >
    > > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    > render
    > > block, <% %>
    > >
    > > comments?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) [MVP], Jul 8, 2004
    #8
  9. showme

    Marcus Guest

    >That is why Oracle is in so much trouble financially.
    > It costs more to use it.Kevin Spencer wrote:

    Err what?
    Oracle had a net profit of $1 bil last quarter, $8+ bill in cash
    ($4 Bil after AP and debt), $8 bil in total assets, and revunue is
    increasing (quarter over quarter and year over year). Looks like
    they are doing pretty good.

    >>comments?

    >
    >
    > Consider the source. Also note that a number of comparison criteria are
    > simply ignored, such as development speed/cost. The most expensive aspect of
    > development is the cost of developers (man-hours of dev time). While ASP.Net
    > consumes a large chunk of memory and processor, RAM is cheap; hardware is
    > cheap; programmers are expensive. ASP.Net is designed to give the
    > implementers a greater ROI. This is the bottom line when it comes to
    > software development. That is why Oracle is in so much trouble financially.
    > It costs more to use it.
    >
     
    Marcus, Jul 8, 2004
    #9
  10. Roger that, Greg. As every professional developer knows, an application is
    never "finished."

    --
    HTH,
    Kevin Spencer
    ..Net Developer
    Microsoft MVP
    Big things are made up
    of lots of little things.

    "Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) [MVP]" <> wrote
    in message news:...
    > Maintainability costs far more than perf in the majority of the cases. ;->
    >
    > --
    > Gregory A. Beamer
    > MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
    >
    > ************************************************
    > Think Outside the Box!
    > ************************************************
    > "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > > > comments?

    > >
    > > Consider the source. Also note that a number of comparison criteria are
    > > simply ignored, such as development speed/cost. The most expensive

    aspect
    > of
    > > development is the cost of developers (man-hours of dev time). While

    > ASP.Net
    > > consumes a large chunk of memory and processor, RAM is cheap; hardware

    is
    > > cheap; programmers are expensive. ASP.Net is designed to give the
    > > implementers a greater ROI. This is the bottom line when it comes to
    > > software development. That is why Oracle is in so much trouble

    > financially.
    > > It costs more to use it.
    > >
    > > --
    > > HTH,
    > > Kevin Spencer
    > > .Net Developer
    > > Microsoft MVP
    > > Big things are made up
    > > of lots of little things.
    > >
    > > "showme" <> wrote in message
    > > news:#A4l#...
    > > > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > > > By Sean Hull
    > > > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > > > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > > > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    > > touted
    > > > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it

    > becomes
    > > a
    > > > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there

    is
    > a
    > > > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you

    have
    > to
    > > > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > > > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And

    > though
    > > a
    > > > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    > > still
    > > > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > > > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > > > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    > > long
    > > > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant

    to
    > > > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are

    because
    > > of
    > > > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > > > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and

    > compromised.
    > > > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > > > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    > > platforms.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain

    unoptimized
    > > > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > > > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    > > render
    > > > block, <% %>
    > > >
    > > > comments?
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Kevin Spencer, Jul 8, 2004
    #10
  11. showme

    Bob Grommes Guest

    What is "head to head" about his comparison? I don't see the detailed
    analysis that "head to head" implies. In fact I don't see much analysis at
    all. I wouldn't be impressed even if I were a PHP partisan; indeed, I'd be
    worried.

    The author of this article is preaching to the choir, giving them some ammo
    to use in proselytizing and encouraging the faithful, and some flip
    dismissive statements on flash cards to use against doubters. Which is to
    say, it's not at all deep reasoning.

    He makes bold assertions about performance but makes no effort at all to
    support them.

    Of course even if he offered code examples and benchmarks, everyone's
    mileage (and evaluation criteria) would vary. But at least you would have
    some idea what he is basing his statements on.

    All in all, this struck me as someone writing to arrive at a predetermined
    conclusion but with enough skill to give some appearance of even-handedness
    by saying some Nice Things about ASP.NET (just before dismissing it in so
    many words as obviously inferior).

    Others have already made good points that many cost factors beyond runtime
    performance must be considered in comparing platforms -- and ASP.NET is no
    performance slouch anyway. Another point for me is that I *like* having all
    the core pieces of the platform come from one vendor. I hate the
    finger-pointing that goes on when you try to get various products to
    interoperate with each other. Say what you will about MSFT development
    platforms -- the quality is generally very good and the end-to-end
    integration is wonderful, especially if you're a smaller shop.

    I don't miss building non-trivial sites in classic ASP. I probably wouldn't
    want to take half a step backwards and build one in PHP either, unless PHP
    addresses something interesting relative to ASP.NET besides raw runtime
    performance.

    --Bob

    "showme" <> wrote in message
    news:%23A4l%...
    > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > By Sean Hull
    > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    >
    >
    > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    touted
    > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes

    a
    > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though

    a
    > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    still
    > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    >
    >
    >
    > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    long
    > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    of
    > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    platforms.
    >
    >
    > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    render
    > block, <% %>
    >
    > comments?
     
    Bob Grommes, Jul 9, 2004
    #11
  12. showme

    Jerry Pisk Guest

    I'm just going to add one more - MySQL is a lot faster than Oracle. Because
    it doesn't support transactions and so on. Does it mean it's better? That
    depends, the same way PHP versus Asp.Net depends. You're trading off
    features for speed and most of the time it's those features that are going
    to make your life a lot easier.

    Jerry

    "showme" <> wrote in message
    news:%23A4l%...
    > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > By Sean Hull
    > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    >
    >
    > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is
    > touted
    > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes
    > a
    > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though
    > a
    > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it
    > still
    > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    >
    >
    >
    > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a
    > long
    > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because
    > of
    > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many
    > platforms.
    >
    >
    > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code
    > render
    > block, <% %>
    >
    > comments?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Jerry Pisk, Jul 9, 2004
    #12
  13. I've recently had to switch from a PHP app because its performance is not
    good enough, however - theres not a web language on the planet that could
    have performed to the standards we wanted, so its not a criticism on PHP.
    ASP.NET could not have handled the job either and we were using mySQL rather
    than Oracle.

    What does this imply, well only that you have to take these things with a
    pinch of salt, Oracle have an interest in saying this stuff on their site -
    and the writer has an interest in more perople switching to PHP as it might
    mean more work for him. So the view will typically be biased.

    The conclusion should have actually demonstrated some real world
    comparisons, including design issues, maintenence, server architectures,
    speed of development etc. I think PHP 5 will have a lot to offer and will
    only complment the available languages on the web - but head to head with
    asp.net will need to be a few pages longer and a bit more fact driven than
    what this chap has offered.

    --
    Regards

    John Timney
    Microsoft Regional Director
    Microsoft MVP


    "showme" <> wrote in message
    news:#A4l#...
    > PHP and ASP.NET Go Head-to-Head
    > By Sean Hull
    > http://otn.oracle.com/pub/articles/hull_asp.html
    >
    >
    > SUMMARY at the BOTTOM
    > Speed and efficiency. As I mentioned earlier, ASP.NET is a framework
    > allowing you to use various programming languages. In addition, it is

    touted
    > as having a great object-oriented model. All this is true, but it becomes

    a
    > detriment as far as speed is concerned. For all that advantage, there is a
    > lot more code to run through to execute the same ASP page than you have to
    > execute in the PHP engine for an equivalent PHP page. PHP is the
    > quick-and-dirty type of solution, the one to get the job done. And though

    a
    > lot of robustness has been added to it since its 2.0 and 3.0 days, it

    still
    > retains that core optimized high-speed approach.
    > Speed is not the only consideration. Memory usage is also important.
    >
    >
    >
    > SECURITY COMPARISON
    > ASP.NET officially requires that you use IIS. Unfortunately, IIS has a

    long
    > history of vulnerabilities, which makes many administrators reluctant to
    > deploy it to handle their web site. Whether these weaknesses are because

    of
    > Microsoft's ineptness or because IIS is a real red flag to hackers is
    > irrelevant: Those systems have a history of being hacked and compromised.
    > PHP runs on Apache, too, which is fast and open source and has a good
    > security track record. Also, as I mentioned, Apache runs on many

    platforms.
    >
    >
    > So is PHP really faster than ASP.NET or is that for certain unoptimized
    > pages? And are they comparing this against the DataGrid instead of the
    > repeater control or even the fastest way using asp.net's inline code

    render
    > block, <% %>
    >
    > comments?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    John Timney \(Microsoft MVP\), Jul 9, 2004
    #13
  14. Hello

    The author of the article is very biased. I have been worked with PHP and
    ASP since 1999 and I worked with ASP.NET since it was beta in 2001. PHP is
    much better than regular ASP, but ASP.NET is much better than PHP.

    I disagree with the author of the article in the following points:

    - ASP.NET can run on Apache as well as IIS

    - With Mono (http://www.go-mono.org), ASP.NET can run on Linux and other
    operating systems

    - IIS 6 doesn't have the bad security reputation as IIS 5, and with a good
    administrator IIS 5 can be secure.

    - I made a simple XML web service with ASP.NET and PHP 4, and ASP.NET was at
    least 10 times faster. I was using nusoap
    (http://dietrich.ganx4.com/nusoap/index.php)

    - Even in areas where PHP may be faster, ASP.NET is more scalable. So if the
    application has a lot of load, you can add more hardware and ASP.NET will
    utilize it better and perform faster, while PHP is not as scalable as
    ASP.NET

    - The cost of development and maintenance for PHP code is much higher than
    ASP.NET.

    All my comments above are based on my experience with PHP 4, I didn't test
    PHP 5, but I think PHP is suitable only for small applications, and never
    large applications. For medium to large applications I would recommend
    ASP.NET or even JSP, but never PHP.

    Best regards,
    Sherif
     
    Sherif ElMetainy, Jul 10, 2004
    #14
    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. Brian W
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    798
    Brian W
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. Karl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    416
  3. news.microsoft.com
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    438
    Alan Silver
    Jul 22, 2007
  4. Rajive Narain
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,988
    Rajive Narain
    Sep 18, 2009
  5. Jiho Han

    Write into <HEAD></HEAD> section?

    Jiho Han, Jan 14, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net Building Controls
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    248
    Sam Fields
    Jan 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page