Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:37 pm
by Dr Evil
Amen, ILoveToast!

My 2 cents:
working for a 100% .NET oriented web company as a project manager all I see is lazy coding, longer dev time (bugs all over the place) and bloody "compiling" every time I ask a programmer to change a line of code (leading to slow sites when we update). I won't mention the case when a programmer takes over someone else's project and has to install the WHOLE thing on his computer.

i'm not objective (I do php as a hobby and love it), but I hate .NET so far.

Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 11:02 pm
by qads
thats a long one lol, i didnt/cant read all of it now, but i am sure its something good..remind me to buy you a toast someday :lol:.

Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:32 pm
by aquila125
what i want to conclude it that PHP its suitable for small/medium applications

Hmm.. ever heard of this site called 'Yahoo' ?

http://developers.slashdot.org/article. ... ad&tid=169

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:25 am
by lazy_yogi
If I come across 2 hrs of nothing to do I'll go through your post and discuss it.
Some of your points are valid but many are not based on my arguments.

Some quick notes:

1. Calling him an idiot was valid in regard to his argument.
This isn't a 'PHP is the best thing ever' forum, it's be a discussion on programming and software development.
Saying 'I think there IS supposed to be biased people' is just idiotic.

2. I didn't say .NET was meant to be M$'s answer to php. ilovetoast said that.

3. Your point on php being a language and .NET being a framework is important - and you repeat yourself over and over and over again - which is why it would take me an hour to read your post.
It's a large part of RAD. There are bits and pieces around that you can get for php, but its not as simple and as easy and powerfully integrated as the .NET framwork is.
Finding all the pieces and getting them to all work together in php makes it more complicated to use.

4. Your php error messages weren't aimed at me, I assume since I never touched on that.

5. My point was clearly NOT that compiled is better or .NET is better for it or that .NET is even compiled - re-read my post.
It was that complied is better for fully developed apps, and interpreted is better while in development.

6. This thread wasn't started by a "pro-M$ TROLL", it was started as a duscussion on M$'s .NET framework and products, and php. It became a M$ bashing by others after that.
"Are we guilty for taking the bait?" What bait? He was asking for opinions about it, there was no bait.
Don't try to make it look like some pro M$ person started an argument. He came do discuss it and the clearly anti-M$ people here such as yourself jumped on it and turned it into an argument such as your own comments:
"years of having to slog through messes created by M$ crap"
"Where else am I supposed to vent?"

7. "I didn't go to a .Net forum and pee in their soup. Yet someone comes here and pees in mine."
I didn't say php was a piece of crap. I'm pointing out that M$'s products have some excellent positives and shouldn't be ignored.

8. I was not anti-php in my post. The only thing I said against php was that its ease encourages proceedural
programming and the .NET languages encourage OOP.
As far as you're OOP arguments, I have to say that proceedurally written applications just don't scale.
I've woked on large proceedural apps and found them to be a mess. Modularity just isn't clean in this
environment.


Re-read my post and if you still thing I was php-bashing in anything other than the OOP aspect, feel free
to point it out. I was commenting on some points and pointing out the invalid arguments that were made on
other points.

This 'php is the best and M$ is all crap' sentiment distracts from important issues such as the creation of quality products. Unfortunantly everyone here is blinded by their love for php and hate for M$ to be unbiased or even be able to have a discussion on it without making it an argument.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:04 pm
by ilovetoast
yogi:
The only elements of my post directed toward you specifically were the name-calling, the M$ bias stuff, and indirectly the OOP stuff. I tried to make that clear by saying the "you" I was referencing in my post was not you specifically.

You do have a solid point about .Net itegrating everything in one place. PHP is scattered certainly. But, that is the price we pay for free solutions. In the end that has to be one of the better pro-.Net arguments out there. I don't personally agree with it, since I know where to find/already have found every necessary PHP addition and extra I need.

My contention simply summarized is that everything that the original poster, caxibrema, said .Net could do that PHP couldn't was uniformed and wrong. But that doesn't make him an idiot....

I think your points about non-OOP code not scaling effectively are valid and well taken. I'm trying to say that the choice should be up to the end user not the development enviroment. The simplicity of PHP is what has made it so popular - for reference check out Rasmus Lerdorf's interview on SitePoint, here. For me freedom to choose how to write some code is very important. A one-size fits all approach is not my thing.

My post was intended to go down caxibrema's original post in the order that he listed. And for what it's worth he most certainly did NOT come in and ask for a discussion.

In his opening he announces this clearly (sic):
i have already some good experience with php and iam learnin asp.net now and after a deep study and comparison of these languages i concluded this things:
The only question he asks is one that does little more than prove his own ignorance re: both PHP and .Net (sic):
anyone know the new model of zend engine 2.0? pre-compilated to an intermediated language or still interpreted. And anyone know any benchmark of PHP x asp.net? because i only found an benchmark comparing php with asp.
And he postscripts it all with perhaps the most ludicrously biased reference of all, the asp.net forum's own comparison of PHP and asp.Net.

Where is the harangue against him for his biases? A bias is defined as "An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice" by dictionary.net. His arguments are the ones unfairly maligning PHP, his arguments are the ones regurgitated from a prejudiced anti-PHP forum.

I and others in the Advanced PHP Theory and Design Forum here at PHPDN may detest M$, true. But when those opinions stem from factual and experiential knowledge passing them off as unfair or prejudiced is a stretch. I know the anti-M$ opinions I have are based on long experience and not simply knee-jerk "I hate M$" biases.

Compare that to my revulsion for the Ottawa Lady Senators. These tools are the saddest bunch of losers to ever embarass a home crowd. I am prejudiced against them. I admit it. :)

peace

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:14 pm
by redhair
Now all get back to coding.

Man it's getting long winded here.. :roll: