Witch language to choose? (PHP or asp.net)

[warstar]

Hello all,

I'm in a bit of a problem I'm given a project making an online
shopping system for a professional barbershop. But I'm with a small
problem in witch language to make the system.
My choice would be PHP but I hear from many people that asp.net is
better and more stable.
So I ask you what your experience with asp.net and PHP is.

Thank you already,
Warnar

[Geoff Berrow]

I noticed that Message-ID: <01********************************@4ax.com>
from warstar contained the following:

I'm in a bit of a problem I'm given a project making an online
shopping system for a professional barbershop.

I think PHP is definitely a cut above the rest - use it and you will
shave hours off your development time. You could run a pole but a few
people might get stroppy. Be sure to trim your code right down then it
won't take long to comb through to find your mistakes. Pretty soon it
will be tight as a DA.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Nikolai Chuvakhin]

warstar <wa*****@NSA.ml> wrote in message
news:<01********************************@4ax.com>. ..

I'm in a bit of a problem I'm given a project making an online
shopping system for a professional barbershop. But I'm with a small
problem in witch language to make the system.
The choice of scripting language is not done in a vacuum; it has
to be logically tied to the choice of operating system, HTTP server,
and database engine. And those choices, in turn, are heavily
influenced by performance requirements and cost considerations.
Since you are not telling us anything about performance requirements
and cost considerations, it's impossible to give you a rational
advice.
My choice would be PHP but I hear from many people that asp.net is
better and more stable.
Even if this is true (and opinions vary), how is it relevant to you
if your deployment platform is, say, Linux or FreeBSD?
So I ask you what your experience with asp.net and PHP is.

Both (as well as JSP, Perl, or Python) can be used to develop and
deploy high-performance Web applications. ASP is best when you
deploy on costly, but robust Microsoft-only software stack
(Win2K/IIS/SQL2K); PHP shines when you are willing to pay a small
performance penalty for significant budget cuts and thus decide
to deploy on an open-source software stack.

Cheers,
NC

[Markku Nevalainen]

Nikolai Chuvakhin wrote:

ASP is best when you deploy on costly, but robust Microsoft-only
software stack (Win2K/IIS/SQL2K);
I have not very often seen word "robust" used with any of the MS
products. So I'll have to ask what does the robustness specifically
mean here?

Does it mean that all these layers on this chain, W2k, IIS, SQL2k
and ASP are significantly more robust than the cheaper, mainly open
source counterparts?
I have thought that at least Apache should be a serious challenger
for IIS, when talking about robustness and security.
PHP shines when you are willing to pay a small performance penalty
for significant budget cuts and thus decide to deploy on an
open-source software stack.

Is there some benchmarks available, where one could easiy see the
speed difference between these two choices, and maybe still some
otheralternatives.

I am *not* a PHP enthusiast myself. I'm just trying to find some
reliable facts for my near future own choices.

Markku Nevalainen

[warstar]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:26:57 +0000, Geoff Berrow
<bl******@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:

I noticed that Message-ID: <01********************************@4ax.com>
from warstar contained the following:

I'm in a bit of a problem I'm given a project making an online
shopping system for a professional barbershop.
I think PHP is definitely a cut above the rest - use it and you will
shave hours off your development time. You could run a pole but a few

But what about the error cheking and stuff asp.net dus that with like
3 clicks.
people might get stroppy. Be sure to trim your code right down then it
won't take long to comb through to find your mistakes. Pretty soon it
Where are you basing this on?? the debuger in asp.net helps you debug
never geen a debuger in php
will be tight as a DA.

Thank you

[warstar]

I agree ais there someone who has seen what is more robust win2k or
win2k3 or debian or redhat etc.
Same on the db part any test?
i was allways thinking apache was better then IIS but maybe i'm wrong?

Thanks for you repley

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:20:15 +0200, Markku Nevalainen
<mn***************@iki.fi> wrote:

Nikolai Chuvakhin wrote:

ASP is best when you deploy on costly, but robust Microsoft-only
software stack (Win2K/IIS/SQL2K);

I have not very often seen word "robust" used with any of the MS
products. So I'll have to ask what does the robustness specifically
mean here?

Does it mean that all these layers on this chain, W2k, IIS, SQL2k
and ASP are significantly more robust than the cheaper, mainly open
source counterparts?
I have thought that at least Apache should be a serious challenger
for IIS, when talking about robustness and security.

PHP shines when you are willing to pay a small performance penalty
for significant budget cuts and thus decide to deploy on an
open-source software stack.

Is there some benchmarks available, where one could easiy see the
speed difference between these two choices, and maybe still some
otheralternatives.

I am *not* a PHP enthusiast myself. I'm just trying to find some
reliable facts for my near future own choices.

Markku Nevalainen

[Geoff Berrow]

I noticed that Message-ID: <9c********************************@4ax.com>
from warstar contained the following:

Where are you basing this on??

Very bad puns.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[warstar]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:42:59 +0000, Geoff Berrow
<bl******@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:

I noticed that Message-ID: <9c********************************@4ax.com>
from warstar contained the following:

Where are you basing this on??

Very bad puns.

Puns?? sorry my english isn't perfect

[Bob]

I've been going through the arguement/thought process over and over,
it never seems to end.

I've done databases/website in both platforms.

Factors in my decision are decidedly less technical than business,
hence my decision to "contribute" to this thread. Technical stuff in
my opinon is splitting heads lengthwise. Both are powerful mature
platforms that are only getting better.

My factors:

1) Cost
2) Availability of tools, including database generation/manipulation
and html / asp/php generation.
3) How does this impact my career, will learning this platform hurt
and enhance my money making potential. After all it's all about
money.

Results:

1) Cost, PHP/MySql hands down. Included in cost is the ability to
find examples/tutorials and CODE! The php/mysql community is bar
none.

2) Edge to Php/mysql in number of tools, however MS has released Web
Matrix this is a real neat professional all in one tool that
integrates html/asp/database quite nicely. And yo, it is free. yup
free. Remember IE/Netscape? However it only supports MS SQL Sever
and Access. That's the hook. Tough to compete with the world's
richest guy.

I my self use, homesite/php/mysql and will soon use navicat. Four
tools vs one. I paid for homesite and will for navicat.

3) This is the hardest, in the corporate world right now, asp / aspx
will pay the most. ASPX will become dirt common. PHP has been
fighting the rebel image and in MY OPINON is making serious headway,
and is becoming accepted. The edge however to ASP/ASPX due to sheer
marketing might of MS.

Pesonally as someone who cut his teeth on the original K&R edition of
"C" I like php. To me aspx gets too wrapped up in framework.

But hey, I am a corporate guy and I do asp and aspx also.

Bottom line, if cash is short go with php. Otherwise go where your
heart leads php or aspx.
But I must say the one thing burns my *ss about MS is the constant
forced upgrading. The new technology never seems to be compatible
with the older technology. You must upgrade or die. I am tired of
having to go back and update my programs because they are no longer
compatible with the new OS.

Make no mistake the profit drive in MS is strong, as it should be, you
will pay. Web Matrix may be free but it locks you in to MSSQL Server,
and that is not free. Plus MS based websites cost more, they have to
pay licensing fees the php/mysql guys don't have to.

Do what you want and feel secure in your decision.

warstar <wa*****@NSA.ml> wrote in message news:<3j********************************@4ax.com>. ..

I agree ais there someone who has seen what is more robust win2k or
win2k3 or debian or redhat etc.
Same on the db part any test?
i was allways thinking apache was better then IIS but maybe i'm wrong?

Thanks for you repley

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:20:15 +0200, Markku Nevalainen
<mn***************@iki.fi> wrote:

Nikolai Chuvakhin wrote:

ASP is best when you deploy on costly, but robust Microsoft-only
software stack (Win2K/IIS/SQL2K);

I have not very often seen word "robust" used with any of the MS
products. So I'll have to ask what does the robustness specifically
mean here?

Does it mean that all these layers on this chain, W2k, IIS, SQL2k
and ASP are significantly more robust than the cheaper, mainly open
source counterparts?
I have thought that at least Apache should be a serious challenger
for IIS, when talking about robustness and security.

PHP shines when you are willing to pay a small performance penalty
for significant budget cuts and thus decide to deploy on an
open-source software stack.

Is there some benchmarks available, where one could easiy see the
speed difference between these two choices, and maybe still some
otheralternatives.

I am *not* a PHP enthusiast myself. I'm just trying to find some
reliable facts for my near future own choices.

Markku Nevalainen

[Phil Roberts]

With total disregard for any kind of safety measures warstar
<wa*****@NSA.ml> leapt forth and uttered:

Where are you basing this on?? the debuger in asp.net helps you
debug never geen a debuger in php

I thought the debugger was a function of the IDE software. And PHP
does have one, in fact it has two that I know of:

http://www.phpedit.com/
http://www.zend.com/store/products/zend-studio.php

Personally I like PHP for it's flexibility. Languages such as C# or
Java may be very powerful but they're also very verbose and writing
a simple script is a pain as you're forced to adhere to both the OO
class structures and strong typing.

Hello world in PHP:
<?php echo 'Hello World'; ?>

Hello world in C#:

using System;
public class HelloWorld {
public static void Main() {
System.Console.WriteLine("Hello World");
}
}

Not much different in Java:

public class Helloworld {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Hello World");
}
}

So if you're looking at web programming then go with PHP as it has
everything you could possibly want and is relatively simple to code
as well. If things such as form validation is a requirement then I
suggest you take a look at WACT (Web Application Component Toolkit)
which does a good job at matching the more useful features of
ASP.NET: http://wact.sourceforge.net/

--
There is no signature.....

[Ian.H]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:32:17 +0100, warstar wrote:

I think PHP is definitely a cut above the rest - use it and you will
shave hours off your development time. You could run a pole but a few

But what about the error cheking and stuff asp.net dus that with like 3
clicks.

LOL!

I love this... a server-side scripting situation and someone suggests
something is "a few clicks away".. hah! the defence rests m'lord ;)

You can see the problem here.. not everything in this world, is supposed
to be "click n drool".

PHP is definitely a better choice IMO.. why stick to some BS closed-source
language that can only (fully) be used on some mickey-mouse "server"? PHP
will run on many OSes (including windoze). Best of all, open-source too =)

Regards,

Ian

--
Ian.H [Design & Development]
digiServ Network - Web solutions
www.digiserv.net | irc.digiserv.net | forum.digiserv.net
Programming, Web design, development & hosting.

[Jochen Buennagel]

Markku Nevalainen wrote:

Nikolai Chuvakhin wrote:

PHP shines when you are willing to pay a small performance penalty
for significant budget cuts and thus decide to deploy on an
open-source software stack.

Is there some benchmarks available, where one could easiy see the
speed difference between these two choices, and maybe still some
otheralternatives.

I don't have benchmarks availlable, but the system I'm working on is
taking around 2 million hits per day, up to 60/s tops (not counting
images) on Apache w/mod_ssl, running the Zend performance suite.
(Figures are for a single server, but we have 30 of them load balanced,
for a total 60 million per day.)

Hope that helps.

Jochen

[warstar]

Tahnk all of you i think the point is like bob.
For me it will be ASPX for this project altho i think php has it's
good use.
Thanks again.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 02:09:56 +0100, warstar <wa*****@NSA.ml> wrote:

Hello all,

I'm in a bit of a problem I'm given a project making an online
shopping system for a professional barbershop. But I'm with a small
problem in witch language to make the system.
My choice would be PHP but I hear from many people that asp.net is
better and more stable.
So I ask you what your experience with asp.net and PHP is.

Thank you already,
Warnar

[Nikolai Chuvakhin]

Markku Nevalainen <mn***************@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:<3F***********@iki.fi>...

Nikolai Chuvakhin wrote:

ASP is best when you deploy on costly, but robust Microsoft-only
software stack (Win2K/IIS/SQL2K);
I have not very often seen word "robust" used with any of the MS
products.

Note that I was not referring to a particular product, but, rather,
to the entire server software stack (OS + HTTP server + database
server). Particular products may suck, but their tight integration
helps them work better together.
So I'll have to ask what does the robustness specifically
mean here?
Just read the latest "Database Clash":

http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0...a=23115,00.asp
http://www.eweek.com/slideshow/0,301...a=23120,00.asp

On Win2K/IIS/SQL2K with 1,000 concurrent users, replacing JSP with
ASP quadrupled throughput and cut response time by a factor of five.
Does it mean that all these layers on this chain, W2k, IIS, SQL2k
and ASP are significantly more robust than the cheaper, mainly open
source counterparts?
No. But when deployed together, Microsoft software stack is pretty
hard to beat.
I have thought that at least Apache should be a serious challenger
for IIS, when talking about robustness and security.

On Win2K, Apache may or may not be a viable alternative to IIS;
in particular, whatever the reason, mod_php causes problems on
some Windows machines, but not others.

PHP shines when you are willing to pay a small performance penalty
for significant budget cuts and thus decide to deploy on an
open-source software stack.

Is there some benchmarks available, where one could easiy see the
speed difference between these two choices, and maybe still some
otheralternatives.

If you can read some very basic technical French, here you go:

http://www.devparadise.com/technoweb...ch/d55a446.asp
http://www.devparadise.com/technoweb...ch/d55a447.asp

Note, however, that those tests are almoost two years old.
In particular, MySQL developers added some pretty serious
query caching capabilities since then...

Cheers,
NC

[Markku Nevalainen]

Nikolai Chuvakhin wrote:

If you can read some very basic technical French, here you go:

http://www.devparadise.com/technoweb...ch/d55a446.asp

Thanks! Yet French is out of my scope. So I had to read even this
easy text through a translator:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...p=fr_en&tt=url

If I understand the numbers right, Win2K/IIS/SQL2K combination
woul handle 36,45 requests/sec.
And Apache/PHP would do only 21.47 requests/sec with their best
combination.

These are interesting numbers. It would be interesting to see if
there are any other benchmarks where the Open Source camp would
win MS:)
Maybe some more fresh numbers, as you said these numbers would
be nearly 2 years old.

But no doubt, MS products do draw nice diagrams that go well
over the other competitors in this benchmark.

Markku Nevalainen

[Geoff Berrow]

I noticed that Message-ID: <ts********************************@4ax.com>
from warstar contained the following:

Where are you basing this on??

Very bad puns.

Puns?? sorry my english isn't perfect

Jokes, word play. I apologise, it was unfair of me.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Nikolai Chuvakhin]

Markku Nevalainen <mn***************@iki.fi> wrote
in message news:<3F**********@iki.fi>...

These are interesting numbers. It would be interesting to see if
there are any other benchmarks where the Open Source camp would
win MS:)

Of course... It's a question of benchmark design. Take the
Database Clash, for example. A marked improvement achieved by
replacing JSP with ASP was largely due to the fact that the
test application was deployed on a single physical machine.
Were IIS and SQL2K to talk over a network, who knows how much
improvement there would have been...

In a similar vein, devparadise benchmarks weren't all that much
about Open Source vs. MS. Each test was run on a two-server setup,
with one physical machine running the HTTP server and the scripting
environment, the other, database server. Operating systems on
the two machines did not have to be the same. So, for example,
the configuration termed "ASP + MyODBC 2.50.39 + MySQL 3.23.36" is
one where the front-end machine ran ASP on Windows 2000 with IIS 5
and the back-end machine ran MySQL 3.23.36 on Mandrake 8.

Generally speaking, it is my (obviously, imperfect) understanding
that all-Microsoft software stack makes most sense when:

1. Budget considerations are secondary to those of performance.
2. The HTTP server and the database server reside on the same
physical machine.
3. Writing (INSERT and UPDATE) queries are a visible part of
the overall database server load, and
4. The number of records and amount of data transferred between
the database server and the scripting environment per query
is large.

Cheers,
NC

[Shawn Wilson]

Geoff Berrow wrote:

I'm in a bit of a problem I'm given a project making an online
shopping system for a professional barbershop.

I think PHP is definitely a cut above the rest - use it and you will
shave hours off your development time. You could run a pole but a few
people might get stroppy. Be sure to trim your code right down then it
won't take long to comb through to find your mistakes. Pretty soon it
will be tight as a DA.

You're a very punny guy.

--
Shawn Wilson
sh***@glassgiant.com
http://www.glassgiant.com

[CountScubula]

cl****@qualitythink.com (Bob) wrote in message news:<cf**************************@posting.google. com>...

I've been going through the arguement/thought process over and over,
it never seems to end.

I've done databases/website in both platforms.

Factors in my decision are decidedly less technical than business,
hence my decision to "contribute" to this thread. Technical stuff in
my opinon is splitting heads lengthwise. Both are powerful mature
platforms that are only getting better.

My factors:

1) Cost
2) Availability of tools, including database generation/manipulation
and html / asp/php generation.
3) How does this impact my career, will learning this platform hurt
and enhance my money making potential. After all it's all about
money.

Go for PHP on Redhat

You can set up a server at home for under $400.

I know we all have recieved a copy of some operating system, but to be
walking in a large corp office with cracked win xp pro disc, or a copy
of windows data center server, doesnt look to good.

I personaly have windows machines as my work stations, and plenty of
linux boxes behind me, in fact microsoft has given me several copies
of all there data center stuff, and linux tools for windows (btw, I
own a data center), but I only have 4 windows servers running, to test
stuff on, and for windows only software, and I have around 700 linux
servers.

So to me, more value is in where you can get the job done, there may
be a shortage of windows asp programmers, so you might be able to bid
high, but when a linux/php guy comes in and converts over a system in
a few days/weeks and moves on to the next job, he makes the
windows/asp guys look kinda silly for chooseing the platform.

All in all, I just like to use what gets the job done, quick, fast,
inexpensive, not the most expensive/robust thing

Well, just my 2 cents

Mike Bradley

[Agelmar]

CountScubula wrote:
<snip>

So to me, more value is in where you can get the job done, there may
be a shortage of windows asp programmers, so you might be able to bid
high, but when a linux/php guy comes in and converts over a system in
a few days/weeks and moves on to the next job, he makes the
windows/asp guys look kinda silly for chooseing the platform.

All in all, I just like to use what gets the job done, quick, fast,
inexpensive, not the most expensive/robust thing

Well, just my 2 cents

Mike Bradley

Mike -
I would have to disagree about the linux/php route being a faster
development path. First of all, if the company is already using Microsoft
platforms (windows server 2003, sql server etc.), then ASP.Net will
integrate very easily, without having to re-invent the wheel. For large,
complex problems, ASP.Net also has the advantage of allowing you to use the
Microsoft .Net Common Runtime Library (CRT), which is very extensive and
also extendable. If you're doing a small to medium sized project, then I
would agree, php allows for very rapid development. ASP.Net, on the other
hand, I have found to be particularly well-suited to large, complex
development projects, especially if you want to go an OOP route (as OOP in
PHP is still fledgling. Granted, PHP5 adds a lot, but it's still in beta and
I doubt many companies will want to be the first to jump onboard, as
companies usually like to sit back for a few months and let others flush out
the bugs.)

So in short, to the original poster, I would say it really depends on the
specific project, and what the company is currently using. I don't think one
can just say "ASP.Net is better than PHP" or vice versa, without really
going in-depth into the specifics of the problem.

// Ian Fette
// Proponent, comp.lang.php

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

<snip>

Mike -
I would have to disagree about the linux/php route being a faster
development path. First of all, if the company is already using Microsoft
platforms (windows server 2003, sql server etc.), then ASP.Net will
integrate very easily, without having to re-invent the wheel. For large,
complex problems, ASP.Net also has the advantage of allowing you to use the Microsoft .Net Common Runtime Library (CRT), which is very extensive and
also extendable. If you're doing a small to medium sized project, then I
would agree, php allows for very rapid development. ASP.Net, on the other
hand, I have found to be particularly well-suited to large, complex
development projects, especially if you want to go an OOP route (as OOP in
PHP is still fledgling. Granted, PHP5 adds a lot, but it's still in beta and I doubt many companies will want to be the first to jump onboard, as
companies usually like to sit back for a few months and let others flush out the bugs.)

So in short, to the original poster, I would say it really depends on the
specific project, and what the company is currently using. I don't think one can just say "ASP.Net is better than PHP" or vice versa, without really
going in-depth into the specifics of the problem.

// Ian Fette
// Proponent, comp.lang.php

I agree with your primary conclusion - that either platform works fine. I
disagree with some of the details, however. PHP is as excellent for large
projects as it is for small ones. The only thing that determines which back
end scripting language I use is which one the clients server(s) support. If
I'm doing a job for a dyed in the wool MS shop, I'll use ASP. If I'm doing
a job for someone smart enough to be using Apache, I'll go PHP. Given a
choice, I'll go with PHP since it allows me to develop for what I believe to
be a more secure environment.

[CountScubula]

> So in short, to the original poster, I would say it really depends on the

specific project, and what the company is currently using. I don't think one
can just say "ASP.Net is better than PHP" or vice versa, without really
going in-depth into the specifics of the problem.

// Ian Fette
// Proponent, comp.lang.php

I agree with you, it depends on the task at hand, perhaps I am just
more proficient at linux/php than at windows/asp.

I was more of just addressing his concerns on what would be good for
his career, although, I am in realy no position to say, I do not know
him, nor his abilities or his goals. But IMHO its easier to make
money on lots of small linux/php jobs.
Mike Bradley