"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7gpgq4-5b2.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sgt. Bilko
> <bilko@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:35:24 -0400
> <46d5943f$0$16282$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:2085944.Vyd9eim3hu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> 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/
>>
>> What a load of crap this comparison is. The moron who wrote this article
>> is
>> simply a dishonest idiot.
>>
>> [quote]
>> PHP is has much better support for the database management system,
>> MySQL...
>> ASP.net can also support MySQL, but PHP is unanimously hailed, by the
>> masses
>> and classes alike, for its great support for this database management
>> system.
>> [-quote]
>>
>> Translation - Since PHP is closely tied to one dbms (MySQL) this somehow
>> makes it "better" than ASP.net. How about using any arbitrary database -
>> Oracle, Sybase or DB2. Oh yeah - ASP.net kicks the snot out of PHP in
>> those
>> cases.
>>
>
> Makes no diff anyway *what* ASP.net sees on the backend;
> ODBC is a powerful tool in Microsoft's arsenal. If a
> database supports it, ASP can use it.
>
> Most databases support it.
Correct. I couldn't name a single database that doesn't have a Windows ODBC
driver for it.
> AFAIK, PHP only supports PostgreSQL and MySQL. (There is
> an ODBC on Linux, but I'm not quite sure how to set it up.
> Not sure if PHP supports it on Linux, either.)
Actually there are ODBC implementations for Linux/Unix and we use them here.
The two big ones are iODBC and unixODBC. Obviously there's no "registry" so
you configure everything in a file called .odbc.ini that lives either in
your home (~) directory or in /etc.
>>
>> [quote]
>> ASP.net is compiled into memory in binary code. So, when ASP.net is used
>> for
>> coding, it is evident that it takes much longer time to process since the
>> codes need to be retrieved from memory. However, PHP is not compiled into
>> memory like ASP.net is. It is interpreted at runtime. That is the reason
>> why
>> PHP coding leads to better speed and even efficiency.
>> [-quote]
>>
>> More clueless bullshit. Since ASP.net is pre-compiled it would make it
>> FASTER than something that needs to be interpreted each time the page is
>> loaded. Somehow this moron thinks that doing a simple "lookup" to find
>> the
>> code for a pre-compiled web page is slower then interpreting the page
>> each
>> and every time it's requested.
>>
>
> As another point: ASP.net may indeed need to be reloaded
> into physical RAM -- one memory page at a time. The truly
> intelligent operating systems (XP among them) load the
> first page only of an executable (it contains, after all,
> the descriptor header), and then fault in other pages as
> the PC in a process requires.
>
> I'm not sure exactly how PHP works, but it is generally
> an interpretive/scripting language, which has quite
> different behavior. However, it may depend on how the
> script is written, and what PHP uses as an intermediate
> form. Perl in particular has to read *the entire script*
> into memory, then compile it into an intermediate form,
> which it interprets. Bash only needs to read more than
> one line at a time if the statement is a compound statement
> such as if, while, or for, or if there's a backslash.
I agree. What I don't agree with is the authors "logic" that looking up a
pre-compiled image in memory is somehow slow but getting a uncompiled page
either from memory or from disk and then running it through an interpreter
is somehow going to be faster. There are definite advantages to
pre-compiling the code that runs. It's ridiculous to think that interpreting
the same raw PHP code (we're not talking byte interpreters here) is faster
because it eliminates having to "look up" the precompiled code in memory.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The strengths of PHP stand out.
>>
>> No. The only thing that stands out is that the idiot who wrote this and
>> the
>> moron who posted it to COLA are both technically inept.
>>
>
> I'm frankly not sure what the strengths of PHP are, beyond
> its relative simplicity. However, it's not scalable,
> though one can always throw several identically-confured
> independent PHP or ASP.net servers behind a round-robin
> switch (we use BigIP F5s here at $EMPLOYER) in a pinch.
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
> item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
