On Aug 30, 7:53 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo, Texeme.Construct
> <jaba...@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:40:06 -0700
> <1188438006.966414.99...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 5:47 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> PHP Vs ASP.net
>
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | Ever since Microsoft has come up with ASP.net, there has been a widespread
> >> | debate among programmers as to whether it is any better than the existing
> >> | open source programming language of PHP.
> >> `----
>
> >>http://www.bizfive.com/articles/web-design/comparing-php-and-asp.net/
>
> >> The strengths of PHP stand out.
>
> > Well...they entirely miss the point of ASP.NET which is that you are
> > basically programming in a pure OO language like c# that is then
> > transformed to a mixture of javascript and server side code
> > automatically by the compiler.
>
> "Pure OO"? C#? Are you sure we're talking about the same language?
>
> Please explain this interesting concept, especially in light of
> various Squeak/Smalltalk capabilities that, among other things,
> allow integers to sport arbitrary methods after creation of the object.
>
C# 3.0 - extension methods.
> (No, Java isn't "pure OO" either.)
>
> As for the article, it claims these:
>
> [1] PHP is a simpler language.
> [2] PHP has much better support for the database management system MySQL.
> [3] PHP has better support for SQLite.
> [4] PHP has very good support for OO programming.
> [5] PHP has more support.
> [6] PHP can use the command line.
> [7] PHP is open source.
> [8] ASP.net is binary/executable, and therefore takes much longer to process.
> [9] PHP and ASP.net are about the same hosting charge wise.
> [10] A PHP website is more difficult to hack into.
>
> The truthfulness of these claims are varying. Given what little I know
> regarding ASP.net:
>
> [1] Entirely false, on a technicality. While PHP might
> be simpler than C#, .NET encompasses a broad array
> of languages, one of them presumably being a variant
> of BASIC#. Granted, the machinery underneath might be a
> little simpler for PHP's runtime; .NET has a lot of stuff.
> But then, so does PHP, last I looked.
>
> [2] No data on this one. PHP does of course support MySQL. So does
> ASP.NET, through ODBC. Specifics would be helpful here.
>
You don't even need to use ODBC in ASP.NET. MySql has Connector/NET -
a native .NET DataProvider. It works very well - and yes, I have used
it. It works in both MS.NET and Mono - and so it's supported on both
Linux and Windows.
> [3] No data on this one.
>
This is crap. There is a .NET provider for SQLite as well. Not only
that, the author makes it sound like it's hard to access C libraries
from .NET - not true it all. In fact, it's very simple.
> [4] I'm not entirely sure what "OO programming" is in this context.
>
That one made me laugh out loud. The author of the article made it
sound like PHP has even better OO support then .NET. That is just
plain laughable.
> [5] No data.
>
ASP.NET has a huge community - so, I would have to say this is bogus.
I've never had trouble getting help with any of the MS technologies
I've worked with. IMHO, it's a wash.
> [6] I'm a little confused here. Presumably both can use
> the command line; PHP might use system() or some variant
> of CGI, whereas ASP.NET could use CreateProcess().
>
I'm not even sure what that means... But, if it means invoking shell
commands, that's easy. You would just use the
System.Diagnostics.Process class to do whatever you need - assuming
you have permmissions of course.
> [7] Entirely true. PHP is all open source, though I'd
> have to check the exact licensing. ASP.Net is a mixture
> of open code and proprietary; presumably one can usewww.mono-project.comfor the open code bits.
>
> [8] Entirely false, absent more data. ASP.net, like any
> executable, is presumably loaded a page at a time on an
> as-needed basis. The pages need not be loaded in order.
>
> [9] No data.
>
> [10] No data, and I have seen a handful of failures on PHP
> sites (mostly because of a database issue), though nothing
> that appears hackable. For its part I'm not sure I can
> easily tell ASP.net failures from other sorts of failures.
>
> I'm a fan of open source but wild, overblown claims do
> not its cause help.
>
Agreed.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
