PDA

View Full Version : PHP or ASP.NET



HeadachesAbound
05-01-2006, 03:22 AM
I've been using PHP for years and quite frankly I have no problems with it. It does what I want it to and it does it well.

But I recently became so bored as to install mod_mono and now I have the ability to use ASP.NET and was wondering why should I? I mean, for what reason would I want to use ASP.NET? I've scoured the web and most everyone has already chosen sides which means the comparisons are biased before they are even made. So I figure I'll ask here.

Why should/shouldn't I use ASP.NET?
Why should/shouldn't I use PHP?

Paul Komski
05-01-2006, 05:10 AM
I think the question should be rephrased along the lines of;
Why should/shouldn't I use Microsoft Products/Technologies.
Why should/shouldn't I use non-Microsoft Products/Technologies.

Once sucked-in to the MS "make it pretty, make it compatible with other MS stuff, make it incompatible with non-MS stuff, make developers and programmers do it our way, etc, etc." one gets (a) pretty stuck with it (which is the obvious intent) and (b) one has to constantly buy their expensive "upgrades" to keep pace (which is the other obvious intent).

It all depends on how long it will take for the mould to get broken but as a web developer you should ask yourself do you want your package hosted on IIS or equivalent, on an NT and not a Unix-based system, using asp.NET with front page extensions, etc, etc OR NOT.

For server side scripting I say go with PHP, MySQL, PERL and CGI and leave the MS stuff well alone.

As an aside but of relevance to this topic is that monster - Internet Explorer. Everyone goes on enough about the inherent security problems but as a web developer it should also drive you nuts at having to modify good validatable code that still has to overcomes MS-IE's reluctance to adhere to the W3C standards (and to which it purports to support).

HeadachesAbound
05-01-2006, 03:54 PM
Keep in mind that I am doing this on CentOS 4 so there is no IIS and there is no MS OS involved. I haven't spent a dime on anything remotely related to the MS Way.

Paul Komski
05-01-2006, 04:13 PM
I wasn't pre-eminently addressing cost but the Microsoft philosophy of getting and keeping as much control as possible. One major route to doing that is by sucking programmers into their big nets (pun intended) by the way that all their software packages are "integrated" with one another.

What's So Bad About Microsoft (http://www.kmfms.com/whatsbad.html) (from a software user's perspective)

HeadachesAbound
05-05-2006, 09:14 AM
Ok, I'm looking for something more than the "MS is evil" here. I know they are evil. But I still want to know if anyone has a real opinion on what advantages / dis-advantages the techs provide when compared against each other.

mjc
05-05-2006, 11:21 AM
I don't think that this is necessarily about MS being "eeeevil" (that is a different topic for a different day), but rather how much time and money you want to commit to the endeavor...

If you commit to MS then you will have your upgrade path predefined...both as to when and what to spend. If you can budget for that then fine.

That is one of the great advantages of Open Source...the decisions are yours, not already made for you.