homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 50.16.112.199
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >     
PHP vs ASP.net
ang_bain

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 3:16 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've been a .net/asp developer for over 10 years but since joining webmasterworld i have noticed a big following of phper's...whats the story...anyone up for discussion...is php better than .net for web stuff or is it just personal preference..please the floor is open...

 

grandpa

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 7:28 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

For me its a personal choice of using Open Source or the Other Guys. I prefer Open Source. I don't think here is any argument for one being better than the other, one should always use the best tool for the task at hand, and that choice sometimes comes down to familiarity with the tools.

I would much rather use a hydraulic jack to lift a car with a flat tire rather than the flimsy jack provided my auto manufacturers. This decision comes after using both.

ogletree

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ogletree us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 8:16 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

Most asp.net developers use it to save time and end up with very bloated websites. I have even seen asp.net websites that cloaked session id's only to googlebot because there is a "feature" in asp.net that does this. Asp.net can be very good but don't use all the built in stuff. Don't design pages using postbacks. Also with asp.net many people can't work on that. There are way more php developers and more help online for PHP. I have also seen some really bad php sites. As a developer you just need to learn how to code right not fast. If your making an online application or intranet website then don't worry about it. If you are making a commercial website that wants to rank well in Google and be scalable plan ahead. The main thing is please do not use the built in asp.net stuff it may seem cool and fast at first but in the long run you will regret it.

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 8:37 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

The .NET framework is fantastic. The visual controls that are provided are for the most part, crap.

ogletree

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ogletree us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 9:10 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

I had a programmer tell me that ASP.net makes hard things easy and easy things hard.

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 9:49 pm on Jun 15, 2009 (gmt 0)

lol, that's pretty accurate

ang_bain

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 9:04 am on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

very true ogletree and gibble...thanks everyone...just wanted to be sure i wasn't missing out on anything..looking forward to stable new framework 4..

graeme_p

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 11:35 am on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

There are a lot of PHP CMSs, and you can usually find one that suits your needs with minimal customisation.

Hosting is cheap, and it is easy to learn, so the barriers to entry are low.

If you need to build something rather than customise an existing solution, there are a lot frameworks out there (Django, Rails, Catalyst, etc) including some PHP ones (CakePHP, Zend, Code Igniter, etc.). Why pick .net?

I currently use Wordpress and Modx, including one site that uses both. I am also working on a Django based site.

ang_bain

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 12:34 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

i guess my thinking was that php was somehow a lot lighter on server resource than .net..but maybe thats only if you use the built in controls...what .net does have is a extensive library for integration and interoperability...r u limited with php is it more like asp...i think php also looks a lot like perl which I found very difficult to follow...

HelenDev

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 3:59 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've always felt that ASP.NET was designed to help Windows developers to do web development.

As someone who comes from a totally web background I found it much harder to grasp than PHP, in fact it felt like I was having to learn how to develop a windows app in order to create a web app, and it took a whole day to do something which I could have done in a few minutes in PHP. My colleagues who were windows developers however grasped it quite easily.

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 5:17 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

.NET does have an amazing framework. And if you understand OOP and the framework it IS a very powerful language and excellent for writing web applications.

But as always, if you know PHP and not .NET...PHP will be simpler, and vice versa

ogletree

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ogletree us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 6:26 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

The easier something is to program websites with the worse it is in my opinion. If it is easy that means that whoever made that program is making decisions for you. In the case of asp.net MS has made some horrible decisions. Code bloat is a bad thing. Having all pages with the same URl is a bad thing. Having pages load with a 302 instead of 200 is bad. Session ID's are bad. The easier .net gets to program the worse it is for the user and search ranking.

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 6:56 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)


The easier something is to program websites with the worse it is in my opinion. If it is easy that means that whoever made that program is making decisions for you. In the case of asp.net MS has made some horrible decisions. Code bloat is a bad thing. Having all pages with the same URl is a bad thing. Having pages load with a 302 instead of 200 is bad. Session ID's are bad. The easier .net gets to program the worse it is for the user and search ranking.

Most of things aren't .NET decisions, but what .NET controls you choose to use.

.NET doesn't force all page to have the same URI, that's up to the programmer.

.NET doesn't force SessionIDs, that's up to the programmer.

I don't know what you're referring to

rocknbil

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rocknbil us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 9:57 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

Bah. None of you even consider perl, do you? :-)

I know. "Old school." "Cranky old men with bad attitudes."

I've programmed in .asp, CF, PHP . . . my preference is still perl. It's as rock solid today as when it was still "duct taping the Internet" 15 years ago. It's just a beautiful language.

But give me a Windows-based server, and it almost has to be .net/.asp. It's just natural.

The easier something is to program websites with the worse it is in my opinion.

This is my basis for not liking PHP as much as perl, on two points. This first is that many of the things programmed in perl by hand/module are existing functions in PHP. I have a bit of a problem passing data to a "black box" and hoping it all works out. I have the same problem using perl modules (which I know is against the core idea of perl, "don't re-invent the wheel.") But if I code it myself, I can find it and fix it, whereas with a module, I cannot - or that module may get updated and break the overall code.

The second reason is, as said, and is often rephrased as "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous." PHP is extremely easy to learn, and is a great way to come to an understanding of OOP. The problem is many new PHP programmers learn only what they need to to get the check cut. I've seen so much code that is just an accident waiting to happen, particularly in respect to security issues. A large portion of my work is plugging up these holes.

But if I had to choose - PHP is still "perl-in-the-page" in my opinion and I'd go with PHP. You can run PHP without too much pain on a Windows server, but the inverse is not exactly easy on a 'nix server.

ogletree

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ogletree us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 10:59 pm on Jun 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

Gibble many of those things happen when bad programmers that are looking for short cuts start coding. My point is the easier something is in .NET the better of a chance of bad and bloated code. I have met very few .net programmers that really cared about anything other than rapid deployment. They could care less if each page has 100k in just source text or if the URL changes when a new page displays.

ang_bain

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 8:41 am on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hi Ogletree..i care...but the same problem surely applies to php developers as well...

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 2:03 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

Agreed, that's a problem regardless of the language used. If you don't know precisely what a line of code is doing, you shouldn't be writing it until you do.

And if a person writes garbage using .NET, there's a good chance they can't write good code without it either. What I mean is, if they generate bloated code, they probably would have written it that way anyhow.

sgietz

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 2:33 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

I find that PHP looks a lot like classic ASP, intermixed with HTML. It makes me shiver.

I suppose you can tell I'm a .NET dude.

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 3:56 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)

sgietz, that's just poor PHP design. I've seen .NET code that looks like that.

You can seperate your design (aspx) from code (.cs or .vb) in PHP if you develop properly and not intermix like traditional ASP or PHP.

sgietz

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 8:32 pm on Jun 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Gibble, I did not know that. Perhaps they should do that with phpbb. It's a mess!

swa66

WebmasterWorld Senior Member swa66 us a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 4:09 am on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

PHP comes "natural" with Apache, MySQL, and linux or unix.

I'll not touch a windows server with a flagpole so that rules out asp/asp.net for me.

Learning a new language is just a bit of time to invest, that should not hold you back, but managing "forever" an environment you hate to have to manage: no way.

graeme_p

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 7:55 am on Jun 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

I agree with you about Windows servers (I do not use Windows desktops either), however you can use Mono (a clone of .net) on Linux/Unix (although, personally, I think there are risks to using something MS lead on Linux).

There are a also lot of other good alternatives: Python and Ruby in particular - most of which can work reasonably well on any platform (although there tends to be a bias towards Unix).

timster

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 8:57 pm on Jun 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've always felt that ASP.NET was designed to help Windows developers to do web development.

I had that experience too. I took a couple of dot-net 1.0 training courses and the places were full of VB developers. They had problems grasping the whole idea of web programming.

I feel that dot-net has great tools for making an average web app quickly, with the Visual Studio GUI. If you are not using Visual Studio, and are writing the web pages by hand, I don't see much of an advantage to dot-net.

With dot-net is you are really locked into MS, and there are costs involved. PHP or Perl sites are much cheaper to host, in my experience.

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 5:41 pm on Jun 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

If your only experience with .NET was the 1.0 version and methods used back then, it's very dated.

It has come a very long way.

centime

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 6:43 pm on Jun 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

ASP.NET is great for we who learned programming with vb, basic and othe ms technologies like excel, access

Gibble

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 7:08 pm on Jun 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

ASP.NET is great for we who learned programming with vb, basic and othe ms technologies like excel, access

vb, basic, vba (excel, access) are NOTHING like .NET

[edited by: lawman at 8:44 pm (utc) on June 26, 2009]

john_k

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 7:19 pm on Jun 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

The problem with .Net is that it is a product of Microsoft. Now that should not be taken as a slam on Microsoft, but just an acknowledgement of the facts.

The overwhelming majority of people that venture into the world of programming do not do so in order to become a programmer. Most people start out programming because they want to make a game, a website, a robot, etc. The faster that they see positive results, the further they dig into it.

Beginning with the release of Visual Basic 1.0 in the early '90s, Microsoft has embraced this fact. They make it easy for people to produce meaningful results with a minimum of invested effort. The depth and breadth of their tools then sucks the beginning programmer in deeper. Finally, their rate of change and planned obsolescence makes it difficult to transition away from MS once you have come to rely on it. .Net lives here.

I use .Net for a lot of my work, but not all of it. When I do use .Net I never use the server controls or built-in post-back functionality. I am a pretty firm believer in a tiered architecture and run away from things that comingle presentation, business, and data storage/retrieval logic. Over the years I have inherited many systems that do so and they are a nightmare to manage.

If you maintain a clear segregation of the application tiers, use a good object model, and, as was stated by another poster, know what your code is doing, then .Net can serve you well. Of course that is also true of PHP. If you don't do these things, then no tool can save you.

If you are writing websites or applications where there is no chance that they will need to evolve over the years, then it really doesn't matter that much. These topics become hot issues when you need to open the code up after some time and make significant changes.

centime

5+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 6:39 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

@Gibble

I find that many excel commands have a vb.net twin.

if i can do something in excel, generally i Cn find a similar command to do something similar in vb.net

as far as i can tell, .net itself is a framework just like its name says, and the code to manipulate the frame work can be generated via c#, v.c++, vb.net,,,,,

vordmeister

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 7:12 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I started in asp, moved to asp.net and from there to php. Main problems with asp.net for me were the hosting costs, limitations some hosts imposed, database costs if you got involved with the MS one, and the difficulty in finding a decent shared host.

Moved over to php for that reason. I'm no code guru, but get on with it well. My code seems shorter and tidier, though that's probably more because I'm getting the hang of it more. There's a lot of stuff on the internet for when I get stuck including the php manual which is excellent.

I've ended up on a dedicated windows server, but I'm running only php (together with the odd windows batch file and executable). I like the mix - I very rarely come up against limitations.

JerryOdom

10+ Year Member



 
Msg#: 3933580 posted 7:33 pm on Jul 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

I prefer PHP for web site applications that I build for small businesses or personal projects that I expose to the outside world. I feel like I know exactly what's going on with my application using PHP & open source.

ASP.NET is great for Intranet web applications and the only way I go for that. It's even better for developing projects that need to be passed around to multiple developers. For me the thicker the application the more likely I am to use .NET. The AJAX is simple, WCF/Sliverlight are getting easier and the ability the manipulate services/WCF quickly makes it hard to pass up.

That being said if you have an ASP.NET AJAX application fire up Fire Bug and check out how much extra crap gets thrown around with requests.

This 32 message thread spans 2 pages: 32 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved