Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 94

Thread: ASP vs PHP

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Emerald Cove, Unformed
    Posts
    1,600
    Access shouldnt even be called a database, especially with all of the bugs/flaws in it mySQL is my baby for web based projects. At work we use SQL2000, and DB2 for our databases... and whew... they run circles around mySQL

    Anways, when I say ASP, i mean ASP 3.0 and below (ASP Classic). That buggers can currently do everything on both unix and windows. Are we talking about the same thing? the asp_mod for use with Apache 2?
    1. Mmmmm food...

  2. #27
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,997
    Nah I'm talking about Sun One ASP (formerly known as Chillisoft ASP).

    I've used Apache ASP using perl script before, but I didn't think it supported VBscript.

    I still prefer to use ASP with MSXML dom instead of ASP.net but I'm sure i'll switch when I get around to taking my C# exams

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,046
    Originally posted by fyrestrtr
    However, that is just a rediculous reason to claim that one is better than another, just because it takes more lines to do something.
    No, actually it means quite a bit, but you have to understand the underlying technologies in both languages. PHP is inherently faster then ASP3, because of the code overhead of ASP3 as shown by Rich. Since ASP and PHP use a "like" technology when it comes to compiling, something that takes 4 lines vs 1 line, will almost certainly see a performance difference.
    ASP.NET is even worse, since ASP.NET first has to determine what language the script is written in (C#, VB etc), then compile, then run. PHP is only written in one language (as it should be) and therefore goes directly to compile and run, showing a VERY big difference in performance.

    ASP is targeted at the Windows platform... it has it's place, as does ASP.NET. But neither language is going to be replacing PHP... and in my extensive testing I found ASP & ASP.NET to run considerably slower then ASP.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kuwait
    Posts
    5,104
    Originally posted by Shannara
    And just to correct the one far above me ASP is a scripting language, agreed. But, in reality (ie, if you set down and think about it) ALL of the .NET languages ARE scripting languages, and not programming languages (with the exception of non-managed VC++). (Don't believe the Microsoft lie, .. I mean, hype they toot around is fact).
    Okay this I'd have to write back on. What makes you think C# is a scripting language? I mean, do you have any solid facts that point toward this, because I'd love to know why C#, J#, etc. are scripting languages, and VC++ isn't.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    434
    Originally posted by comphosting
    No, actually it means quite a bit, but you have to understand the underlying technologies in both languages. PHP is inherently faster then ASP3, because of the code overhead of ASP3 as shown by Rich. Since ASP and PHP use a "like" technology when it comes to compiling, something that takes 4 lines vs 1 line, will almost certainly see a performance difference.
    ASP.NET is even worse, since ASP.NET first has to determine what language the script is written in (C#, VB etc), then compile, then run. PHP is only written in one language (as it should be) and therefore goes directly to compile and run, showing a VERY big difference in performance.

    ASP is targeted at the Windows platform... it has it's place, as does ASP.NET. But neither language is going to be replacing PHP... and in my extensive testing I found ASP & ASP.NET to run considerably slower then ASP.
    No offense intended, but I think you have some misconceptions about ASP.NET. Not unlike JSP, it is only upon the first request for a page that it must be compiled; afterwards the compiled version is cached.

    In theory, then, the compiled ASP.NET page should be faster than an interpreted PHP. In theory

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,046
    Originally posted by jb4mt
    No offense intended, but I think you have some misconceptions about ASP.NET. Not unlike JSP, it is only upon the first request for a page that it must be compiled; afterwards the compiled version is cached.

    In theory, then, the compiled ASP.NET page should be faster than an interpreted PHP. In theory
    Which is a security risk anyway. Yes, it can be useful, but should only be used where speed is a priority over all else. Plus, ASP.NET doesn't simply "cache" everything, it has to be done within the code itself. But for dynamically changing code (the entire point of a web scripting language) it's usefulness thins quite dramatically. Not to mention, using it for sensitive information is dangerous.

    Personally, I think caching is a flaw more then a positive thing. It can only be used in certain situations and your risking serious security problems if the caching system has a bug in it.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    434
    Originally posted by comphosting
    Which is a security risk anyway. Yes, it can be useful, but should only be used where speed is a priority over all else. Plus, ASP.NET doesn't simply "cache" everything, it has to be done within the code itself. But for dynamically changing code (the entire point of a web scripting language) it's usefulness thins quite dramatically. Not to mention, using it for sensitive information is dangerous.

    Personally, I think caching is a flaw more then a positive thing. It can only be used in certain situations and your risking serious security problems if the caching system has a bug in it.
    Are we talking about the same kind of caching? Server side caching? Cause I'm aware of the security risks of client side caching.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    3,046
    Yes server-side caching as well... it just leaves open another possibility of an attack. If there were some sort of bug that left the caching open to alteration or getting information from the cached file, it would be a problem. I just think the security risks involved outweight the benefit.
    A well-reasoned assumption is very close to fact.
    - Adorno

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Emerald Cove, Unformed
    Posts
    1,600
    Originally posted by fyrestrtr
    Okay this I'd have to write back on. What makes you think C# is a scripting language? I mean, do you have any solid facts that point toward this, because I'd love to know why C#, J#, etc. are scripting languages, and VC++ isn't.
    Well, let me first remind you that VC++ Unmanaged (ie, the resulting compilation) are not scripts.

    The answer is really quite simple for anybody who knows anything about scripting languages and programming languages. As of the release of .NET, Micro.... changed the term "translation" to "compilation". Since, as we know any results of the "compilation" of .NET languages result in... oh look MSSL (some call it MSIL... MicroSoft Scripting Language, calling it Intermediate language is just plain incorrect).

    All of the "managed" languages are translated into MSSL before it is executed. the "JIT" compiler further optimises the MSSL for the computer it is running, BEFORE executing the script.

    Another tell-tell sign is the resulting MSSL. Have you taken a look at it? More of a hybrid ASM w/ some HL stuff thrown in. Anybody who is even remotely familiar with .NET can easily translate it back (or write a translater as most have done) to the original code + optimizations since it has ran through the JIT a few times. Heck, not only can you translate back to the original code with ease, you can translate it into any of the .NET scripting languages.

    Security through obscurity is a pure BS government tactic myth. Even with obstuctors (sp?) they are fake, relying on the forementioned myth. There is no real obstructors as they would break the JIT compiler on use. Sure, they make it a bit harder to translate back to the original language, but they have to keep on releasing new versions as their older ones get "cracked" (ratted out). A real obstructor would have no need of updates

    Every time the pseudo "exe" file is ran, it is further and further optimized for that computer configuration. The script is further and further changed to run as fast as it can on that computer configuration. So when you translate it back to the language that was used to create it.. the code is almost the same, yet optimized

    So, to be more accurate, all of the .net "languages", are really just syntaxes as they stop being languages when they are considered ".NET". That is why the last real version of VB is VB6.

    As for Visual C++, that compiler has the ability to create managed and unmanaged code, ie. scripts and programs, via a flip of a compiler switch. The last I heard C# only does managed code (aka scripts), which makes it... a scripting language.

    Now, the faster computers are, the less time it takes to execute a script and program. Also, once the script is loaded into memory, and depending on how fast the computer is, theory has it that it could run faster then an real program because it is constantly modified to make the best use of the hardware configuration on that computer. So .NET scripts could be faster then real programs,.............

    However, a major point in this is due to this "flaw" in .NET, it would NEVER be safe for client side applications. It's great for server-side and in-house tools. But once you are dumb enough to distribute the program to clients, you are giving away your source code.

    I'd figure, when people do that (and they are dumb enough to do it now), then they should have no rights to the program/source in question, because they wasn't smart enough to use a programming language for client-side.

    Take a peek at the Quake II game engine in .NET.. funny!
    1. Mmmmm food...

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    434
    With the advent of Java, and now .NET, I don't subscribe to the "programming" vs. "scripting" language dichotomy anymore. Java and .NET are in a (new) league of their own due to their reliance on a virtual machine to interpret the intermediate code that results from pseudo-compilation.

    I probably didn't subscribe to the "programming" vs. "scripting" language to begin with: nobody is going to tell me that Lisp and SmallTalk aren't "programming" languages. I've always thought that the proper dichotomy is compiled vs. interpreted, where again, Java and .NET are a whole 'nother ball of wax.

    As for the original post, if by ASP he meant ASP.NET with C#, I think some valid arguments can be made for this approach over PHP, in that it was built from the beginning to support "robust" object orientation. What do I mean by robust? Certainly not PHP4.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    69

    ASP questions...

    Does RedHat 9 have ASP 3.0 suppport built in? Is it available? If so, from who/where?

    Secondly, is there such a thing as an ASP.NET plug-in for Linux (RedHat)?

    Thanks...
    John

  12. #37
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,997
    No, no asp.net for unix yet

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    central Illinois
    Posts
    65

    back in the saddle

    I've only just started playing catch-up after years of inactivity in Web design. However, already I have a compelling reason to criticize Microsoft marketing materials. Specifically, I refer to the http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...hpvsaspnet.asp document mentioned earlier in the discussion.

    Additionally, the PHP language is not strongly typed (that is, if you compare the string "4" to the integer 4, the result is true), which causes problems when building larger applications, and makes debugging an application difficult.
    Here they print a blatant untruth about PHP 4. The very first "for Dummies" style tutorial I read about PHP explained that version 4 offers === and !== operators which enable type-sensitive comparisons. I would guess that Microsoft's PHP "expert" knows enough to justify putting that acronym on his resume, but not enough to be writing an in-depth evaluation of the latest release, let alone a comparative analysis of PHP vs. ASP. One would hope that such a large organization would have enough editorial resources to catch a mistake that jumped out at me, a guy who just discovered what PHP actually was a few days ago.

    As far as the core issue of this thread, though I lack depth of experience with either scripting technique, I would say that the answer is situational. PHP offers all of the advantages that are implied by the term open source. On the other hand, some business are probably ASP-dependent, and ASP might carry a little more weight in environments where personnel executives and IT staff value certification/credentials over more meaningful ways to assess an employee's capabilities. If you're building an intranet from the ground up or creating/expanding a site that is not heavily intertwined with other sites already established, then PHP seems like the wise choice. However, if you're adding on to something that already relies on either ASP or PHP, or if you're part of a team that has a history of favoring one over the other, then it is probably best to adapt to circumstances and not risk incompatibility with either features or people already in place.

    Regards,
    pro

  14. #39
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,997
    Especially important seeing as almost everyone is using PHP4 these days and not version 3

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Emerald Cove, Unformed
    Posts
    1,600
    saxroots:

    Don't listen to Rich2K, he forgot to use the search function before replying. Since it runs on Redhat....:

    asp.net for linux: www.go-mono.com


    jb4mt:

    Okay...... interesting... I guess... then define compiled and interpreted? If its the same as programmed and scripted then that's just word play.... ?
    1. Mmmmm food...

  16. #41
    You should look at asp.net not asp. asp is being old ms technology. If you want to learn a complete object oriented language where you can put all your code in a seperate file and be able to compile it, be able to use server controls and solid commcerial ones, then asp.net is the way. php is good but it's still like most scripting languages where it's interpreted, mixed with html...
    Sami
    --------
    http://www.cheapesthosting.com - Affordable Hosting since 1998

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    434
    Originally posted by Shannara

    jb4mt:

    Okay...... interesting... I guess... then define compiled and interpreted? If its the same as programmed and scripted then that's just word play.... ?
    I essentially agree with you that it's word play, or semantics. And in a semantic context, one problem with the programmed/scripted dichotomy is that "programmed" has a more positive connotation, and "scripted" a less positive connotation.

    SmallTalk and Lisp are a couple of the finest interpreted languages in history. I think they deserve to be considered "programming" languages, not scripting languages.

    And this points out another problem. The terms "programmed" and "scripted" are imprecise and subjective -- a matter of opinion. "Compiled" and "interpreted" are more precise and objective -- it's hard to dispute that C goes through the compilation process whereas Perl goes through the interpretation process.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    69
    Thanks Shannara!

  19. #44
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,997
    Originally posted by Shannara
    saxroots:

    Don't listen to Rich2K, he forgot to use the search function before replying. Since it runs on Redhat....:

    asp.net for linux: www.go-mono.com


    jb4mt:

    Okay...... interesting... I guess... then define compiled and interpreted? If its the same as programmed and scripted then that's just word play.... ?
    Sorry but not until it supports all the ASP.net languages and functions that ASP.net on Windows does will I call it ASP.net

    It doesn't even support VB.net (yet)

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    30
    Originally posted by Ivana Nutjob
    Interesting...

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...hpvsaspnet.asp

    Everyone knows that the guy was paid large sums of money to make ASP.NET a lot better than PHP.
    Michael

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Emerald Cove, Unformed
    Posts
    1,600
    Originally posted by Rich2k
    Sorry but not until it supports all the ASP.net languages and functions that ASP.net on Windows does will I call it ASP.net

    It doesn't even support VB.net (yet)
    Hmmm, and how many months old is your information?

    Do you know what ASP.NET is? it's not "asp.net languages" It's "languages that is usable in asp.net". Quite a difference. And due to that difference, ASP.NET IS ASP.NET, no matter what platform. As for the vb.net comment, not all of vb.net works completely atm, but it does work. Mono website explains it all.
    1. Mmmmm food...

  22. #47
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    567
    go for php

  23. #48
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,997
    I know full well what ASP.net is, I program in it all the time. The difference is on an MS platform ASP.net has three built in languages without any extras needed. Built in are VB.NET, C# and JScript.NET with no additional tools required. However ASP.net can support any of the current 25 .net compliant languages. This information I read straight off Microsoft's own site (although re-written).

    Installing an IIS6 server you can run all of these immediately in your ASP.net page. Thus I won't call this an ASP.net solution until is can do the same things as an out of the box real ASP.net solution can.

    Especially as most ASP.net developers (currently) work in VB.net. They'll have a surprise when they install and ASP.net application for linux just to discover it doesn't work.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Emerald Cove, Unformed
    Posts
    1,600
    Interesting, IIS6? very interesting. I use IIS5, and it supports all three syntaxes (I wouldnt call them languages as they are technically not) out of the box.

    And since ASP.net does NOT need all three syntaxes to run, just one, your logic is flawed.
    1. Mmmmm food...

  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,997
    Sorry my logic is not flawed.

    VB.net and C#.net in ASP.net are the same fully fledged langages available from programming direct in visual studio.net

    IIS5 and IIS6 with the .net framework come with those three languages installed AUTOMATICALLY.... thus if someone writes in ASP.net they are likely to want to use something like VB.net or C#.net (as there is only so much you can do with the asp.net specific tags).

    To quote Microsoft
    Unlike classic ASP, which supports only interpreted VBScript and JScript, ASP.NET now supports more than 25 .NET languages (including built-in support for VB.NET, C#, and JScript.NET -- no tool required)

    [snip]

    ASP.NET is more than the next version of Active Server Pages (ASP); it is a unified Web development platform that provides the services necessary for developers to build enterprise-class Web applications
    In fact one of the big sales points from Microsoft is that the whole .net framework whether it be for windows or the web is the common language runtime.

    Of course it doesn't need all three to run, but out of the box you can use any OR ALL of the three in a single ASP.net page. Thus if something perports to being ASP.net on linux you would expect the same functionality as taking the script straight from a windows box and putting in on linux. Clearly in this case it would not be possible with the software as it currently stands. Not than I'm knocking the software, I'm sure it does the C# stuff very well.

    Next time try arguing with someone who isn't currently taking a Microsoft Certified Solution Provider in C#.net qualification (not quite there yet but almost)

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •