ASP.NET or PHP

[flick]

Originally Posted by mjhoagland

No you don't. Mono is an abstraction layer for .Net to run on top of the Linux kernel. Click here for Mono, hehe.

But anywho, still all you need is the framework. That's it. Nothing more. No ands, ifs or buts about it.

Now if we can let this thread lay where it deserves.

oh, i did not know that. thanks mucho :)

[onesummer]

Originally Posted by mjhoagland

You can't really compare apples to oranges here. You're trying to ask people whether a compiled, ideally, large scale language is a good comparison to a top down scripting that is more suited for a small to medium projects whereas pretty much anything .Net really shows it's potential in scales of largeness.

I concur.

[unome]

php for me

[PaulClark]

Both PHP and ASP.NET have their place. Choosing between them should be a rational evaluation, rather than a quasi-religious debate between Microsoft technology and Open Source.

In our business, we exclusively use ASP.NET, for two reasons:

1. We hire very highly skilled developers. They are an expensive resource, and the ASP.NET environment and Visual Studio IDE allows them to be much more productive. Yes, we have to pay Microsoft for tools, but the cost of this is a fraction of what we gain in productivity.
   .
2. Deploying sites for a Microsoft environment is much, much easier than in an open source environment. Rather than telling clients who want to host independently from us that they need this version of Linux with that version of Apache, this release of PHP, those PEAR extensions and that version of MySQL we just tell them they need a standard MS hosting environment, with DOT.NET support and MS-SQL. We, and our clients, pay more for hosting but and save on configuration and support.

As I said up front, this is not a 'religious' position. I think Open Source tools have their place, in particular where:

• The cost of labour is very low relative to the cost of tools. If you're outsourcing all your development to India to minimise development costs, it might make sense to use PHP. The developers will be less productive than if they used ASP.NET, but the costs will still be low, and the lost productivity will cost you less than you might have to pay to Microsoft.
  
  Another example of low labour costs is where you are doing everything yourself, and don't mind - or even enjoy - sitting up all night browsing the web for freeware and tinkering with servers. If you value your own time at zero, you can build amazingly powerful web software entirely for free.
  .
• Your business model involves huge amounts of hosting, especially database hosting. In this case, the cost of Microsoft server licences - especially MS-SQL can become a significant consideration. Don't forget, though, that recruiting an MS-certified DBA is pretty easy; finding the right MySQL guru who knows your particular version with your particular distribution of all the other server technologies you are using can be tricky - and a whole lot more expensive.
  .
• The particular tools/modules you want to use - such as an online community builder, for example - exist (and are perhaps free) for PHP but not for ASP.NET.

So, horses for courses.

But before you reject ASP.NET as being too expensive to learn, remember that Visual Studio Express is a free download and contains everything you really need to build DOT.NET sites; MS-SQL Express has most of the functionality of full MS-SQL and is a free download; and if you run XP or above, your PC already has enough of IIS in it for you to start using as a development machine.

[jontywagener]

yeah, i agree with you. Also, i believe that you can compile ur sites into DLL files. I am a PHP developer and I use MySQL. I, personally, like the freedom of programming in an open environment. I find that Microsoft is a little complex for me, though i have never really looked too deep into it that i can say for sure :)

As for the hosting, I usually build online apps that people can log into so hosting is not really an issue for me.

Also if you build for the usual PHP configuration you shouldnt have a problem with the hosting side. I usually put it into my contract that the site, if there is one, should be transferred to our host.

What i do like about .net is that, from what i see, it is very automatic so you as a developer can be much more productive with your time.

I still like php/mysql and would not be easily moved tho, but i dont go round and jump on peoples heads because of the platform that they program on.

I am actually looking at learning .net so that if a customer does specify a platform that i can give it to them.

anyway. :) Jonathan

[PaulClark]

Just taken a quick look at the poll.

As at 17.35 on Weds 12 March -

ASP.NET - 2 votes
PHP - 11 votes.

Guys, the question was "Which has most features set within (no third party)", not "Which do you use / like".

If PHP has the bigger feature set, why are people saying ASP.NET is too big/complicated to learn?

I know a lot of people hate Microsoft. I even understand why. But are you serious?

[jontywagener]

well, i dunno, but i do know that 19 million + sites use php which is more than .net. i spose that .net may have less features but they are more structured (but i really have no idea).