PHP and ASP why the difference?

[David Dorward]

Actually until .net, each version of VB (and their other primary
development language C/C++) was completely compatible with code written
in a previous version.

I'm pretty sure that my attempts to open a VB3 project in VB5 were entirely
fruitless... but that was 6 years ago.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed

I was a little surprised to find that there was better than 10 to 1
difference in PHP position vs ASP/ASP.net positions. Also the salary
for PHP positions was about (generally) 25% less than ASP positions.
Please note I am NOT asking or implying that one is better than the
other!! I am just wondering why you think there is such a difference in
the (US) job market?

The reason is that ASP sounds kind of snaky and, ergo, more dangerous.

 

[Travis Newbury]

The reason is that ASP sounds kind of snaky and, ergo, more dangerous.

you know.... Now that you mention it....

 

[JDS]

ASP and PHP can both be used to produce HTML that is w3c standards
compliant, but what standards are either of you talking about?

Well, I mean, that is what I mean.

 

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Andy Dingley

M$oft are _terrible_ for
dumping major incompatible platform shifts onto their developers. But as
you're tied into them, you have no choice but to follow, bleating
plaintively.

I'm in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general a lot, and one of the most
frequently posted problems in someone who had a (Classic) script working
fine until they either a) upgraded their server, or b) installed a service
pack

 

[tom]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed


The reason is that ASP sounds kind of snaky and, ergo, more dangerous.

NOW you tell me.

[signed] Cleopatra.

 

[Andy Dingley]

What major incompatible platform shifts are you speaking of?

Visual C++ class libraries.

Anything involving Ole, OLE, COM, DCOM, COM+, ActiveX or whatever it's
called this week.

 

[Andy Dingley]

HTML that is w3c standards compliant,

There are no W3C standards, because even the W3C isn't a standards body.

Now no-one (with a life) _cares_ about this, and as W3C is independent
and platform agnostic (<snort>), then at least it looks like a standards
body. But "standard" does actually have a strict legalese definition,
and the W3C don't meet it. If you search their own site you can find the
full explanation on why they issue "TR"s, rather than standards.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Visual C++ class libraries.
Anything involving Ole, OLE, COM, DCOM, COM+, ActiveX or whatever it's
called this week.

All the above are terms for basically the same thing. COM, DCOM, COM+
and ActiveX are pretty much synonyms. OLE was a predecessor of COM.
And all continue to work in the latest version of Visual studio (heck
you can still program a windows application using an event loop if you
want to. But why?) I look at it as more of a (well directed) evolution
than a platform shift. I consider a platform shift more like moving
from C to C++ or the jump to COM. But to each his/her own. If you see
that as a platform shift, then so be it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

There are no W3C standards, because even the W3C isn't a standards body.
Now no-one (with a life) _cares_ about this, and as W3C is independent
and platform agnostic (<snort>), then at least it looks like a standards
body. But "standard" does actually have a strict legalese definition,
and the W3C don't meet it. If you search their own site you can find the
full explanation on why they issue "TR"s, rather than standards.

Well if you want to get anal about it yes. But they represent the
closest thing to standards as there is. Which, by the way, was my
point. " What standard are they [the posters] talking about?"

 

[Andy Dingley]

All the above are terms for basically the same thing.

Yes, but the changes were enough to break existing stable code -
_that's_ the problem.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Yes, but the changes were enough to break existing stable code -
_that's_ the problem.

You know I used Visual C++ from 1.15 to the present version and I have
never noticed that.