Can Oracle buy PHP?
-
Actually, it is awesome, and I'm not speaking with bias unlike most here. I prefer some aspects of ASP.NET, but PHP has always been able to do the most out of the box. Jeremy Falcon
Do not want to start a war, but I agree with Peterchen, it is not awesome to me, it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design. I am only biased because I have used it (for almost two years in the past) and found it rather lacking. The only advantage it had at the time was that it was extensible via C/C++, but when ASP.NET came out the door was shut, there was no use in my camp for PHP again. If a person has no access to ASP.NET and cannot run Mono, then I guess a person could use PHP or research more into Ruby on Rails. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Do not want to start a war, but I agree with Peterchen, it is not awesome to me, it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design. I am only biased because I have used it (for almost two years in the past) and found it rather lacking. The only advantage it had at the time was that it was extensible via C/C++, but when ASP.NET came out the door was shut, there was no use in my camp for PHP again. If a person has no access to ASP.NET and cannot run Mono, then I guess a person could use PHP or research more into Ruby on Rails. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design.
From a design standpoint ASP.NET is better (not ASP - that was a big piece of crap from MS). From a functionality/speed standpoint PHP wins. Sometimes I need speed above all else when making a high traffic website. Although, ASP.NET is faster than ASP thankfully, so this is less of an issue as it was in the old days. If you don't mind paying for add-ons (or mind taking the time to write them yourself) ASP.NET is nice also, but it still doesn't have the same out of the box functionality that PHP does. Also, ASP.NET is Windows only, I do not like having to use Windows as a server unless I'm forced to, Unix is still a better server by leaps and bounds (of course, I haven't played with mono yet on Unix). If someone prefers ASP.NET for good reasons that's fine, but like peterchen just displayed here, people on CP don't have a real reason to not like it. They just don't like it because it's not Microsoft. And personaly I think that's retarded. Jeremy Falcon
-
Do not want to start a war, but I agree with Peterchen, it is not awesome to me, it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design. I am only biased because I have used it (for almost two years in the past) and found it rather lacking. The only advantage it had at the time was that it was extensible via C/C++, but when ASP.NET came out the door was shut, there was no use in my camp for PHP again. If a person has no access to ASP.NET and cannot run Mono, then I guess a person could use PHP or research more into Ruby on Rails. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Of course, if Oracle gets a hold of PHP and stars putting Java crap in it, I may just go back to using HTML 1.0. :laugh: Jeremy Falcon
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design.
From a design standpoint ASP.NET is better (not ASP - that was a big piece of crap from MS). From a functionality/speed standpoint PHP wins. Sometimes I need speed above all else when making a high traffic website. Although, ASP.NET is faster than ASP thankfully, so this is less of an issue as it was in the old days. If you don't mind paying for add-ons (or mind taking the time to write them yourself) ASP.NET is nice also, but it still doesn't have the same out of the box functionality that PHP does. Also, ASP.NET is Windows only, I do not like having to use Windows as a server unless I'm forced to, Unix is still a better server by leaps and bounds (of course, I haven't played with mono yet on Unix). If someone prefers ASP.NET for good reasons that's fine, but like peterchen just displayed here, people on CP don't have a real reason to not like it. They just don't like it because it's not Microsoft. And personaly I think that's retarded. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And personaly I think that's retarded.
I think Roger makes a valid point. It is a hacked language with no thought to final design. http://www.php.net/manual/en/[^] My Programming Library
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And personaly I think that's retarded.
I think Roger makes a valid point. It is a hacked language with no thought to final design. http://www.php.net/manual/en/[^] My Programming Library
You obviously just blew right over my post. Jeremy Falcon
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design.
From a design standpoint ASP.NET is better (not ASP - that was a big piece of crap from MS). From a functionality/speed standpoint PHP wins. Sometimes I need speed above all else when making a high traffic website. Although, ASP.NET is faster than ASP thankfully, so this is less of an issue as it was in the old days. If you don't mind paying for add-ons (or mind taking the time to write them yourself) ASP.NET is nice also, but it still doesn't have the same out of the box functionality that PHP does. Also, ASP.NET is Windows only, I do not like having to use Windows as a server unless I'm forced to, Unix is still a better server by leaps and bounds (of course, I haven't played with mono yet on Unix). If someone prefers ASP.NET for good reasons that's fine, but like peterchen just displayed here, people on CP don't have a real reason to not like it. They just don't like it because it's not Microsoft. And personaly I think that's retarded. Jeremy Falcon
-
Do not want to start a war, but I agree with Peterchen, it is not awesome to me, it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design. I am only biased because I have used it (for almost two years in the past) and found it rather lacking. The only advantage it had at the time was that it was extensible via C/C++, but when ASP.NET came out the door was shut, there was no use in my camp for PHP again. If a person has no access to ASP.NET and cannot run Mono, then I guess a person could use PHP or research more into Ruby on Rails. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
it is more like a hacked together language without any thought of the final design
At times I feel that way about ASP.NET, and MS's take on web technology in general.
"Time sneaks up on you like a windshield on a bug."
- John Lithgow -
Mike Ellison wrote:
Hi Jeremy. What functionality does PHP have out of the box that ASP.NET doesn't?
Well, the list isn't as long as it was for classic ASP, but...
- PDF Support
- More native DBMS support (to avoid the slow ODBC)
- RAR Support
- ZIP Support
- Better Mathimatical libraries
- IIS AND Apache Support/Programablity (ASP.NET is IIS only)
- Hyperwave Support
There may be others I'm not aware of. Don't get me wrong, I like ASP.NET. I wish PHP would pick up a few design pointers from it. But, PHP is a very sophisticated language in its own right. Jeremy Falcon
-
Mike Ellison wrote:
Hi Jeremy. What functionality does PHP have out of the box that ASP.NET doesn't?
Well, the list isn't as long as it was for classic ASP, but...
- PDF Support
- More native DBMS support (to avoid the slow ODBC)
- RAR Support
- ZIP Support
- Better Mathimatical libraries
- IIS AND Apache Support/Programablity (ASP.NET is IIS only)
- Hyperwave Support
There may be others I'm not aware of. Don't get me wrong, I like ASP.NET. I wish PHP would pick up a few design pointers from it. But, PHP is a very sophisticated language in its own right. Jeremy Falcon
Hi Jeremy. No problem - and don't get me wrong. I am not that familiar with PHP (I know ASP.NET much more) and didn't really know what features it has that ASP.NET doesn't. Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't? I wish I knew more about PHP. Does it support anything akin to databinding?
-
Hi Jeremy. No problem - and don't get me wrong. I am not that familiar with PHP (I know ASP.NET much more) and didn't really know what features it has that ASP.NET doesn't. Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't? I wish I knew more about PHP. Does it support anything akin to databinding?
Mike Ellison wrote:
I am not that familiar with PHP
No problem. I'm glad you asked actually. Most people don't tend to bother.
Mike Ellison wrote:
Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't?
Not off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear about it if there's any.
Mike Ellison wrote:
Does it support anything akin to databinding?
Not as far as I know. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And personaly I think that's retarded.
I think Roger makes a valid point. It is a hacked language with no thought to final design. http://www.php.net/manual/en/[^] My Programming Library
Toasty0 wrote:
no thought to final design
I agree with Toasty0 because I did an graduate independent study on the semantics and syntax for PHP and there was no real consistency with the language. It is like Perl and C hit head on at 60 mph. I am not trying to bad-mouth PHP and I do use it time to time when working with a *nix machine. Paul
-
Mike Ellison wrote:
I am not that familiar with PHP
No problem. I'm glad you asked actually. Most people don't tend to bother.
Mike Ellison wrote:
Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't?
Not off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear about it if there's any.
Mike Ellison wrote:
Does it support anything akin to databinding?
Not as far as I know. Jeremy Falcon
The databinding concept is one of those design decisions in ASP.NET that I really miss not having when working with other tools. It's really a great model for a bunch of reasons. I wish more web tools adopted something like it. It allows for the seperation of data code from presentation markup, which really does make maintenece easier (I've heard some PHP supporters claim this isn't a big deal, but then saw one in person spend the better part of three hours just trying to add an additional column of data to a scripted output.) It allows for consistency in application of data to visual elements - learn the concept once and you're off to the races. It allows for rapid development in ways that a scripting model combining data code with presentation code really can't. If one is using reflection within templated controls (late-binding, say via DataBinder.Eval) then on high-performance sites I can see an argument that databinding becomes too slow... but then, one can manually script the output in ASP.NET by looping through data just like one could with PHP or other scripting tools if high-performance becomes the key driver. For most web applications I can imagine, the benefits provided by the databinding model (rapid development, consistent application of data in visual elements, and simpler maintenence) are just too useful. For most web applications I really don't perceive the performance difference that some claim is inherently better in PHP.
-
that's right. Still, I prefer ASP :)
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
Still, I prefer ASP
If you mean ASP.NET, then i agree. But if you still remember "classic" ASP with any fondness, you're just nuts... :)
---- Scripts i've known... CPhog 0.9.9 - make CP better. Forum Bookmark 0.2.5 - bookmark forum posts on Pensieve Print forum 0.1.1 - printer-friendly forums
-
Hi Jeremy. No problem - and don't get me wrong. I am not that familiar with PHP (I know ASP.NET much more) and didn't really know what features it has that ASP.NET doesn't. Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't? I wish I knew more about PHP. Does it support anything akin to databinding?
Mike Ellison wrote:
Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't?
The keyword here would be "can". You can do just about anything with any programming technology if you want to build the missing functionality for yourself. As an example, in ASP.NET you have: * Multiple levels of cache control (inluded database bound cache triggers) * Web Controls * Web Server Controls * Master Pages / Themes * Web Parts * Code / Presentation separation * Full data binding technology * State management via Session State and ViewState all with easy plugin technoloy to allow changing the state storage to any device you choice such as from memory to a database or anything other State Server * Built in User Manager, Authentication, Validation These are just a few off the top of my head that PHP does not have not to mention the fact the varity of "Qualtiy" programming lanuages one can use to build web applications. While much of this functionality you "could" build on to PHP, it would not be practical. ASP.NET was built for RAD consistent design. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Mike Ellison wrote:
Do you know of anything that ASP.NET can do out of the box that PHP can't?
The keyword here would be "can". You can do just about anything with any programming technology if you want to build the missing functionality for yourself. As an example, in ASP.NET you have: * Multiple levels of cache control (inluded database bound cache triggers) * Web Controls * Web Server Controls * Master Pages / Themes * Web Parts * Code / Presentation separation * Full data binding technology * State management via Session State and ViewState all with easy plugin technoloy to allow changing the state storage to any device you choice such as from memory to a database or anything other State Server * Built in User Manager, Authentication, Validation These are just a few off the top of my head that PHP does not have not to mention the fact the varity of "Qualtiy" programming lanuages one can use to build web applications. While much of this functionality you "could" build on to PHP, it would not be practical. ASP.NET was built for RAD consistent design. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
Web Controls
This is really a design issue and not functionaly. Eihter way, this is acheived easily via classes in PHP. And unlike ASP.NET, it wouldn't be IE centric, so it'll actually work well in other browsers.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Web Server Controls
Once again, a design issue. ASP.NET doesn't have plenty of out-of-the-box web server controls anyway. Design issue.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Master Pages / Themes
Once again, design issue. This functionaly (the idea behind it that is) has been inherint via dynamic includes in PHP forever.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Code / Presentation separation
Once again, design issue. You're totally off-base ya know. Also, with dyamic includes in PHP you can still have the separation.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Full data binding technology
This one was alredy discussed.
Rocky Moore wrote:
State management via Session State and ViewState all with easy plugin technoloy to allow changing the state storage to any device you choice such as from memory to a database or anything other State Server
At least learn what it is you claim to not like... http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.session.php[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
These are just a few off the top of my head that PHP does not have
And just shows your true ignorance.
Rocky Moore wrote:
not to mention the fact the varity of "Qualtiy" programming lanuages one can use to build web applications.
WTF. Nice, try to pass your opinion as fact. PHP is primarly based on C/C++ syntax with a bit of Perl, etc. Being able to have C# and VB syntax isn't a big deal. Thanks for proving my points about people on CP not really knowing what they claim to not like. Jeremy Falcon
-
The databinding concept is one of those design decisions in ASP.NET that I really miss not having when working with other tools. It's really a great model for a bunch of reasons. I wish more web tools adopted something like it. It allows for the seperation of data code from presentation markup, which really does make maintenece easier (I've heard some PHP supporters claim this isn't a big deal, but then saw one in person spend the better part of three hours just trying to add an additional column of data to a scripted output.) It allows for consistency in application of data to visual elements - learn the concept once and you're off to the races. It allows for rapid development in ways that a scripting model combining data code with presentation code really can't. If one is using reflection within templated controls (late-binding, say via DataBinder.Eval) then on high-performance sites I can see an argument that databinding becomes too slow... but then, one can manually script the output in ASP.NET by looping through data just like one could with PHP or other scripting tools if high-performance becomes the key driver. For most web applications I can imagine, the benefits provided by the databinding model (rapid development, consistent application of data in visual elements, and simpler maintenence) are just too useful. For most web applications I really don't perceive the performance difference that some claim is inherently better in PHP.
Mike Ellison wrote:
The databinding concept is one of those design decisions in ASP.NET that I really miss not having when working with other tools. It's really a great model for a bunch of reasons. I wish more web tools adopted something like it.
I too, wish PHP would adopt it as well. But, since I'm so used to not having it I guess I can live without it.
Mike Ellison wrote:
I've heard some PHP supporters claim this isn't a big deal, but then saw one in person spend the better part of three hours just trying to add an additional column of data to a scripted output.
Well, it could've also been poorly written code. Of course, I wasn't there so I don't know for sure, but 3 hours seems kinda hefty.
Mike Ellison wrote:
For most web applications I really don't perceive the performance difference that some claim is inherently better in PHP.
And you most likey won't until that site is under heavy load. If it's an Intranet, low user type of site I'm less concerned with speed myself as well. One thing ASP.NET does have going for it is Visual Studio's editor. What I would give for the same visual design with PHP. Jeremy Falcon
-
Toasty0 wrote:
no thought to final design
I agree with Toasty0 because I did an graduate independent study on the semantics and syntax for PHP and there was no real consistency with the language. It is like Perl and C hit head on at 60 mph. I am not trying to bad-mouth PHP and I do use it time to time when working with a *nix machine. Paul
computerguru92382 wrote:
I agree with Toasty0 because
That wasn't my point. All he did was reiterate what was already stated. Nobody here ever claimed PHP had the best design. Jeremy Falcon
-
computerguru92382 wrote:
I agree with Toasty0 because
That wasn't my point. All he did was reiterate what was already stated. Nobody here ever claimed PHP had the best design. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Nobody here ever claimed PHP had the best design
I am not sure if any language has the "best design" because I've seen many good points and bad points of all languages. The instructor who supervised my independent study is the same guy who specializes in language theory and teaches all of the high-level languages courses at my university that I go to. When people start these language wars, I think the bottom line should be what is the environment to support, and the skillsets of the team involved. Paul
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
Web Controls
This is really a design issue and not functionaly. Eihter way, this is acheived easily via classes in PHP. And unlike ASP.NET, it wouldn't be IE centric, so it'll actually work well in other browsers.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Web Server Controls
Once again, a design issue. ASP.NET doesn't have plenty of out-of-the-box web server controls anyway. Design issue.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Master Pages / Themes
Once again, design issue. This functionaly (the idea behind it that is) has been inherint via dynamic includes in PHP forever.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Code / Presentation separation
Once again, design issue. You're totally off-base ya know. Also, with dyamic includes in PHP you can still have the separation.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Full data binding technology
This one was alredy discussed.
Rocky Moore wrote:
State management via Session State and ViewState all with easy plugin technoloy to allow changing the state storage to any device you choice such as from memory to a database or anything other State Server
At least learn what it is you claim to not like... http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.session.php[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
These are just a few off the top of my head that PHP does not have
And just shows your true ignorance.
Rocky Moore wrote:
not to mention the fact the varity of "Qualtiy" programming lanuages one can use to build web applications.
WTF. Nice, try to pass your opinion as fact. PHP is primarly based on C/C++ syntax with a bit of Perl, etc. Being able to have C# and VB syntax isn't a big deal. Thanks for proving my points about people on CP not really knowing what they claim to not like. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
This is really a design issue
You seem to be in denial, this is functionality. With your logic I could say all programming is design issues.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
At least learn what it is you claim to not like... http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.session.php\[^\]
I am not talking about "basic" session state which even ASP classic had, in ASP.NET V2 it is much more flexible and it now not a great sin to use it!
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
nce again, design issue. You're totally off-base ya know. Also, with dyamic includes in PHP you can still have the separation.
What a joke comparing server side includes which even ASP had back in the dark ages with with Maste Pages / Themes. This seems to show you really do not know much about ASP.NET 2.0 at all! Same goes with web controls, web user controls, web parts, etc.. From all the insults in your reply (not to mention attacking all CP users), I guess I must have stepped on a sensitive spot. Maybe some time spent with a couple good books on ASP.NET 2.0 and a little practice, might just help that problem.. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
This is really a design issue
You seem to be in denial, this is functionality. With your logic I could say all programming is design issues.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
At least learn what it is you claim to not like... http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.session.php\[^\]
I am not talking about "basic" session state which even ASP classic had, in ASP.NET V2 it is much more flexible and it now not a great sin to use it!
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
nce again, design issue. You're totally off-base ya know. Also, with dyamic includes in PHP you can still have the separation.
What a joke comparing server side includes which even ASP had back in the dark ages with with Maste Pages / Themes. This seems to show you really do not know much about ASP.NET 2.0 at all! Same goes with web controls, web user controls, web parts, etc.. From all the insults in your reply (not to mention attacking all CP users), I guess I must have stepped on a sensitive spot. Maybe some time spent with a couple good books on ASP.NET 2.0 and a little practice, might just help that problem.. Rocky <>< Latest Post: SQL2005 Server Managemnet Studio timeouts! Blog: www.RockyMoore.com/TheCoder/[^]
Rocky Moore wrote:
You seem to be in denial, this is functionality. With your logic I could say all programming is design issues.
Aparently you don't know the difference between design and functionality.
Rocky Moore wrote:
I am not talking about "basic" session state which even ASP classic had, in ASP.NET V2 it is much more flexible and it now not a great sin to use it!
You didn't mention flexibility. You asnwered a question saying what ASP.NET had something that PHP didn't. As such, you were hinting at PHP not having an equivalant when it does. Get your crap straight.
Rocky Moore wrote:
What a joke comparing server side includes which even ASP had back in the dark ages with with Maste Pages / Themes.
Once again, you're on crack. I didn't claim they were exactly the same. I did say however the same FUNCTIONALITY can be acheived. Perhaps if you pull the stick out of your ass you'll notice the difference.
Rocky Moore wrote:
This seems to show you really do not know much about ASP.NET 2.0 at all! Same goes with web controls, web user controls, web parts, etc..
Nice logic there.
Rocky Moore wrote:
From all the insults in your reply (not to mention attacking all CP users)
Call it want you want, most people on CP don't have clue about PHP but hate it anyway. Go home and whine to mommy if that hurt your feelings.
Rocky Moore wrote:
I guess I must have stepped on a sensitive spot.
Yeah, I'm tired of the stupidity here. You're doing a great job of reminding me of it.
Rocky Moore wrote:
Maybe some time spent with a couple good books on ASP.NET 2.0 and a little practice, might just help that problem..
Take you're own medicine. Also, I'm willing to bet I've studied more ASP.NET than you've studied PHP. Reply or don't reply, I don't care, you're a waste of my time. So this is my last post on this thread. Jeremy Falcon