Asp, Jsp, php and other Ps
-
OK, so it's more about the actual tools than any language features. Personally I kind of liked PHP, especially compared to ASP. Being able to use C# would be nice however. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote: Personally I kind of liked PHP, especially compared to ASP. Absolutely. That's why I learned PHP. :) Jon Sagara As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks. Sagara.org | Blog | My Articles
-
I really like the fact that C# is strongly-typed, and that you have to declare a variable before you can use it. (I don't remember whether PHP has a "strict" option. I suspect it does, but I remember being bitten in the rear by this "feature" more than once.) But mostly, for me, it's the tools. Server/Html controls. The .NET framework classes. Ability to easily build my own reusable custom controls. Integrated debugging. Now, keep in mind that I haven't done any real PHP development for a couple of years, so there may be much better tools out there now, but moving from Dreamweaver/UltraEdit for PHP to VS.NET for ASP.NET was a huge productivity boost for me. Especially with 2.0 coming out -- the Membership API is a huge time saver, as is the Wizard control. I guess I'm just lazy. ;) Jon Sagara As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks. Sagara.org | Blog | My Articles
the reason i like php is (apart from all the cost and platform issues) that it has a c/c++ type syntax which i fond cleaner than the typical vb type script ... of course if i used c# i might be tempted to prefer that but i understand that it has a c/c++ type syntax too i keep meaning to look into c# / .net but frankly none of my clients ask for it (in fact they often ask for non ms solutions due to costs) and i just dont really have the time to learn it for the sake of learning it ... if i ever needed to im sure it wouldnt be a huge strain to get up to speed
-
shog9 wrote: "If you want to do a personal website, PHP hosting seems to be a good deal cheaper and more common." l a u r e n wrote: it implies it isnt good for "non-personal" ie business websites :confused: I don't want lessons about manner or sexism, but some english lessons would be handy. How does what Shoq9 said implies what you said?? Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -- modified at 14:39 Thursday 1st September, 2005 [edit]Hope it isn't offensive, at least I didn't mean it to be offensive. I just don't get it, really. I am not looking for fight this time :rose:[/edit] -
shog9 wrote: "If you want to do a personal website, PHP hosting seems to be a good deal cheaper and more common." l a u r e n wrote: it implies it isnt good for "non-personal" ie business websites :confused: I don't want lessons about manner or sexism, but some english lessons would be handy. How does what Shoq9 said implies what you said?? Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -- modified at 14:39 Thursday 1st September, 2005 [edit]Hope it isn't offensive, at least I didn't mean it to be offensive. I just don't get it, really. I am not looking for fight this time :rose:[/edit]well if he said "php is a good choice for websites depending on the requirements of the client (ie, are they a microsoft shop)" then i would have taken it to mean the only factor in determining the language was 1. personal prefernce and 2. hosting environment what he actually said (and whether he meant it this way or not is why i asked the question in the first place) implied to me that if u were making a personal website php is fine but for anything more it isnt suitable ... and of course i disagree with that statement ... BUT since i dont know thats what he actually meant i didnt jump in and start disagreeing ... simply trying to clarify a rather unimportant point ;)
-
Which of the web dev languages is most popular nowadays? I'm wondering which one to study.
PHP, although pretty nice has a few downsides: (1) poor unicode support and (2) it's not a very productive language due to the lack of standard components. Also, it doesn't encourage a separation of code and HTML, but with a bit of discipline that's no problem. ASP.NET is very nice, productive and easy to get started with. And you get to use Visual Studio. If you want to be as productive as possible you should check out RoR. It's still in beta, and it's not very well documented but it's nonetheless very impressive. http://www.rubyonrails.org/[^] Watch the movie in which somebody creates a functional blog in approximately 30 minutes. Regards, Diederik
-
PHP, although pretty nice has a few downsides: (1) poor unicode support and (2) it's not a very productive language due to the lack of standard components. Also, it doesn't encourage a separation of code and HTML, but with a bit of discipline that's no problem. ASP.NET is very nice, productive and easy to get started with. And you get to use Visual Studio. If you want to be as productive as possible you should check out RoR. It's still in beta, and it's not very well documented but it's nonetheless very impressive. http://www.rubyonrails.org/[^] Watch the movie in which somebody creates a functional blog in approximately 30 minutes. Regards, Diederik
-
ummmmm php is still just a scripting language ... its not a platform in the same sense as .net ... php5 is way cleaner and more object oriented than php4 ... its also faster in terms of a dev ide like vs ... i think dw can do a fairly good job as can several other commercial and a few free ide's ... personally i use a good old text editor (kate - part of kde - on debian) so i dont look around too much ... guess that makes me a dinosaur :->
l a u r e n wrote: ummmmm php is still just a scripting language ... Check this out: http://www.php-compiler.net/[^] Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
l a u r e n wrote: ummmmm php is still just a scripting language ... Check this out: http://www.php-compiler.net/[^] Never forget: "Stay kul and happy" (I.A.)
David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy -
Learning ASP.NET does not mean that you automatically learn ASP.OLD too. I went from coding on mainframes, to ASP.NET. Then picked up some regular old ASP work and it is plenty different. Knowing ASP.NET gives you a good base for being able to figure out ASP. But that doesn't mean that you "know" it.
Yes, you're right. Maybe I was too rustic in my affirmations... I mean that ASP syntax is equal to the ASP.NET syntax using VB server side scripts (the scripts embedded inside the HTML code with the <% ... %> tags).
[ITA] Tozzi ha ragione: Gaia si sta liberando di noi. [ENG] Tozzi is right: Gaia is obliterating us.
-
Yes, you're right. Maybe I was too rustic in my affirmations... I mean that ASP syntax is equal to the ASP.NET syntax using VB server side scripts (the scripts embedded inside the HTML code with the <% ... %> tags).
[ITA] Tozzi ha ragione: Gaia si sta liberando di noi. [ENG] Tozzi is right: Gaia is obliterating us.
Yes. Actually, if you put a lot of your code in the html then ASP.NET and ASP have a lot in common. I tend to keep most all of my code in the code behind. I did some ASP work (having not done any pure asp in the past) and was surprised at what I didn't know because I just hadn't used ASP.NET that way.
-
I swear by RoR now too. ASP.NET has gone from hero to zero for a majority of my web-dev since I started with Ruby on Rails. I wake up at odd hours wanting to use it.... very strange. Waaay to much kool-aid maybe but RoR works, that is the bottom line. regards, Paul Watson South Africa Colib and WebTwoZero. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
PHP, although pretty nice has a few downsides: (1) poor unicode support and (2) it's not a very productive language due to the lack of standard components. Also, it doesn't encourage a separation of code and HTML, but with a bit of discipline that's no problem. ASP.NET is very nice, productive and easy to get started with. And you get to use Visual Studio. If you want to be as productive as possible you should check out RoR. It's still in beta, and it's not very well documented but it's nonetheless very impressive. http://www.rubyonrails.org/[^] Watch the movie in which somebody creates a functional blog in approximately 30 minutes. Regards, Diederik
I'll second/third/fourth RoR. regards, Paul Watson South Africa Colib and WebTwoZero. K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Which of the web dev languages is most popular nowadays? I'm wondering which one to study.
I would suggest ASP.NET! One reason is that you can lean the .NET framework and apply that knowledge and code base to both Windows applications and web applications. Same backend logic can drive both applications. You invest your knowledge into a code base which you usually rob for future products, it can be nice to develop components that you can easily use in both web and Windows applications. Another feature is the ASP.NET is clean in design and changes the old view of web development. It took me a while coming from a ASP,PHP,CGI web development background to actual grab onto the design principles in ASP.NET such as breaking a page up into reusable components. In addition there is the caching, session and context management which is built in ready for you apply to your applications. of course you have the entire .NET framework at your disposal for n-tier web applications not to mention simple things like graphic manipulation (is cool to open a graphic, add text and pump it out dynamically, all built into the framework. It is already really nice since you do not have to learn a new language and put up with thier limitations, you can use about any .NET language to build web applications. It is a hands down choice as far as I am concerned! Rocky <>< My Blog[^]
-
Yes. Actually, if you put a lot of your code in the html then ASP.NET and ASP have a lot in common. I tend to keep most all of my code in the code behind. I did some ASP work (having not done any pure asp in the past) and was surprised at what I didn't know because I just hadn't used ASP.NET that way.
tidge wrote: I tend to keep most all of my code in the code behind. In my pages I tend to write only calls to methods. All the rest is in the code behind. For example:
Results <% showResults(); %>
and so on. :cool:
[ITA] Tozzi ha ragione: Gaia si sta liberando di noi. [ENG] Tozzi is right: Gaia is obliterating us.
-
PHP, although pretty nice has a few downsides: (1) poor unicode support and (2) it's not a very productive language due to the lack of standard components. Also, it doesn't encourage a separation of code and HTML, but with a bit of discipline that's no problem. ASP.NET is very nice, productive and easy to get started with. And you get to use Visual Studio. If you want to be as productive as possible you should check out RoR. It's still in beta, and it's not very well documented but it's nonetheless very impressive. http://www.rubyonrails.org/[^] Watch the movie in which somebody creates a functional blog in approximately 30 minutes. Regards, Diederik