SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 386
  1. #26
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Comparing a languauge to a framework is still totally wrong, but it still seems this point is being missed. Do you compare C++ to .NET? No you compare C++ to C#.NET.

    Another thing that makes collaboration easier is the fact that ASP.NET is strongly typed – i.e. you cannot be as sloppy in your coding as you can with PHP.
    Actually what makes colloboration easier is having developers how know who to develop.

    The overall problem .NET has is it's not really appealing to anyone but existing MS developers and environments (those into Visual Basic, Visual C++).

    Being cross platform with a price tag attached to most things you want to do with it, it fails to appeal to the small web developer.

    On the enterprise level, corporations have already invested heavily in doing things the Java way and delivering web services is likely to happen more with J2EE and IBMs solutions.

    And that's before we even ask about SOAP; the web services protocol Bills betting the company on. Despite being pushed by the big names, the jury is still out as to whether it will take off: Sun has it's alternatives, the REST approach raises questions about whether SOAP is fundamentally flawed, issues like security are outstanding and the bottom line; some people are calling SOAP COAP, because it's become so complex. Among other things, SOAP is about cross platform data exchange, in particular with legacy systems, but if no one apart from .NET developers are doing anything with it, it's a dead parrot.

    And if SOAP flops, Bills gonna wish he hadn't bet the company on .NET

  2. #27
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by HarryF
    Comparing a languauge to a framework is still totally wrong, but it still seems this point is being missed. Do you compare C++ to .NET? No you compare C++ to C#.NET.
    Well, while I of course admit that PHP and .NET are extremely different, we must compare them side by side anyhow, since they both build web pages. And C# is TOTALLY WORTHLESS without .NET. You can't just compare C++ with C#, as C# can't be used at all without the .NET framwork - C# can't run without the .NET Framework, and C# doesn't have any libraries of it's own - it uses the .NET class libraries.

    Actually what makes colloboration easier is having developers how know who to develop.
    That too, yes, but it goes without saying. If you were to develop a complex system in PHP, you would have to define and develop a set of rules for collaboration - that's not neccesary with a stronly typed language such as Java or C#.

    The overall problem .NET has is it's not really appealing to anyone but existing MS developers and environments (those into Visual Basic, Visual C++).
    <Waving desperately> Hey! I'm a PHP developer learning .NET!

    Being cross platform with a price tag attached to most things you want to do with it, it fails to appeal to the small web developer.
    That's okay, since .NET is neither suited, designed nor targeted at small developers. I still think small-scale web developers (like me) can benefit from using ASP.NET, though.

    On the enterprise level, corporations have already invested heavily in doing things the Java way and delivering web services is likely to happen more with J2EE and IBMs solutions.
    The battle between .NET and Java is going to be an interesting one, but I already know who is going to be the winner: The developer.

    Frankly, I coulnd't care less who wins, as both are so similiar (assuming you use C# for .NET) that you could easily jump back and forth between the solution that is best at the moment.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, while I of course admit that PHP and .NET are extremely different, we must compare them side by side anyhow, since they both build web pages.
    Sorry but NO!. Let me put this is it's most simple terms;

    PHP is a programming language.
    .NET isn't

    Does it need to be any clearer? Please don't do it again - it simply highlights the usual problem with MS - their dumbed down technologies are not even understood by those developing with them.

    As I put in my article, comparing PHP with .NET is like comparing a truck to a road: two different things in other words.

    Here's some comparisons you can make;

    .NET vs J2EE
    .NET vs Delphi
    .NET vs Zope (in the web arena)
    .NET vs all the C++ libraries you can find

    Here's some others you can make;

    ASP.NET vs PHP
    C#.NET vs C++
    J#.NET vs Java

    Is this making sense yet? .NET doesnt build web pages either - it's simply a dumb framework waiting for someone to run some code in it - ASP.NET builds the pages.

    That too, yes, but it goes without saying. If you were to develop a complex system in PHP, you would have to define and develop a set of rules for collaboration - that's not neccesary with a stronly typed language such as Java or C#.
    So by being strongly typed, you can wave a magic wand and write a class which automatically interfaces to someone elses. If you write a class and document it, you already have you rules of collaboration. The reason why Java is strongly typed is they have a runtime which needs to be 100% certain of what code is doing, so that it operates the same way on every OS.

    In fact the opposite is true. The most successful mechanism for application exchange is XML which is a loosely typed language. Allow me to give you <data>some</data>... When you need strong typing, it's provided by XML Schema but at heart, it's loosely typed.

    It only says "strongly typed = easier development" in the MS manuals.

    In my opinion, next generation languages should allow coders to code without needing to care about typing - that platform the code runs on should handle all this for them. PHP is half way there but as yet, there's no solid means for "API negotiation" - perhaps that's where XML comes in in some manner.

    Strong typing is, in my opinion, a lower level requirement, there so that you don't "surpise" your underlying operating system / hardware: which is probably exactly my MS pushes it - they know just how dodgy that underlying OS can be

    <Waving desperately> Hey! I'm a PHP developer learning .NET!
    At judgement day...

  4. #29
    SitePoint Addict exhale81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    395
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by M. Johansson
    Web Matrix doesn't write one line of code for you, and it's an EXCELLENT editor for that price. It's not an end-all solution - That's Visual Studio.NET.
    And how much is Visual Studio.NET? Hundreds of dollars, right? That's the same for the server, PWS is great but it cannot be used for a website. Anything which lets you write REAL code, professional stuff, cost a lot of money and, as someone mentionned, has to be upgraded all the time if we want to keep up with Microsoft mania. Can't really say that ASP is cheaper than PHP
    Sebastien Rosset
    :: Commercial: BlackSonic | ScriptsCenter
    :: Non-Profit: VJCentral | ReclaimYourSoul

  5. #30
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by HarryF
    ASP.NET vs PHP
    ASP.NET is not a language - It's just a bunch of classes that runs on the .NET framework.

    C#.NET vs C++
    C# doesn't have any class libraries. Hardly an equvalent of C++. You would need to include the framework in this comparison for it to work.

    J#.NET vs Java
    J#.NET doesn't have any class libraries. Same thing there.

    [quote]Is this making sense yet?{/quote]
    Nope, not really. Technologies are very different from eachother, and that is something we just have to accept. There is really no way to make cookie-cutter comparisons, in my opinion.

    So by being strongly typed, you can wave a magic wand and write a class which automatically interfaces to someone elses.
    Nope - it just decreases the chances of an error being made - nothing else.


    In fact the opposite is true. The most successful mechanism for application exchange is XML which is a loosely typed language. Allow me to give you <data>some</data>... When you need strong typing, it's provided by XML Schema but at heart, it's loosely typed.
    XML is a markup (not programming) language for data exchange between systems, and I really don't see how it's relevant here. Transforming data in XML, transferring it, and parsing it inside an application doesn't seem very efficient.

    Strong typing is, in my opinion, a lower level requirement, there so that you don't "surpise" your underlying operating system / hardware: which is probably exactly my MS pushes it - they know just how dodgy that underlying OS can be
    You are a much more experience coder than I am - is this really the case? Is strong typing worthless? Why do people use C++? I don't get it. I'm not trying to be rethorical with this part, but rather trying to understand.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  6. #31
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by exhale81

    And how much is Visual Studio.NET? Hundreds of dollars, right? That's the same for the server, PWS is great but it cannot be used for a website. Anything which lets you write REAL code, professional stuff, cost a lot of money and, as someone mentionned, has to be upgraded all the time if we want to keep up with Microsoft mania. Can't really say that ASP is cheaper than PHP
    VS.NET is actually THOUSANDS of dollars, but that is besides the point. Web Matrix is a free developemnt environment superior to any free development environment for PHP. That's the point, and that is what makes ASP.NET development <--(Note this word) cheaper. ASP.NET deployment is more expensive.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So by being strongly typed, you can wave a magic wand and write a class which automatically interfaces to someone elses.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nope - it just decreases the chances of an error being made - nothing else.
    Well lets look at this carefully. Does it actually reduce the chances of an error being made?

    There are two types of error here - call the first "environment" errors - e.g. your 32bit OS can't handle the size variable it was given and the second application errors (e.g. you API expects an INT to select an ID from a database but get's given a string.

    For someone to use your object API, they need to know something about it so you document it (manually or with some sort of introspection). In the first case, you'd specify the signature - what variables each method will accept and what it delivers - that solves the second type of error.

    And your loosely typed environment solves the first type of problem by preventing your throwing the OS curveballs.

  8. #33
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Then what's it FOR? Why do people code in C++ at all?
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  9. #34
    SitePoint Wizard Mincer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London | UK
    Posts
    1,140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by M. Johansson
    Then what's it FOR? Why do people code in C++ at all?
    In terms of 'normal' application development (ignoring web scripting) there's pretty much nothing that c++ can't do.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Continuing the rant

    Web Matrix is a free developemnt environment superior to any free development environment for PHP
    Man I've tried it and rather than blowing anything out of the water, it simply blows. If you like WYSIWYG development environments and want one for PHP try: http://studio.qadram.com/ . The fact that web matrix comes with "integrated FTP" says it all to me (ftp is insecure and although many use it - dont - you're giving away your password everything you log in).

    ASP.NET is not a language - It's just a bunch of classes that runs on the .NET framework.
    It may be that everything you do with ASP.NET requires a class, but ASP.NET is still a language - it has it's own syntax as rules.

    C# doesn't have any class libraries. Hardly an equvalent of C++. You would need to include the framework in this comparison for it to work.
    Neither does C++. That's why every C++ source begins with stuff like;

    Code:
    #include <iostream.h>
    The real comparison between the PHP environment and .NET is how good are PHP's code libraries and extensions? And I agree - PHP could do better when it comes to classes written in PHP. There's stuff that could be learnt there from .NET's control libraries.

    XML is a markup (not programming) language for data exchange between systems, and I really don't see how it's relevant here. Transforming data in XML, transferring it, and parsing it inside an application doesn't seem very efficient.
    This is an interesting point. XML (and all the extensions for it) I believe are both markup and programming language these days. Take this for example - a use of XSL Transformation;

    We have source like;
    Code:
    <source>
    
    <car id="11"/> 
    <car id="6"/> 
    <car id="105"/> 
    <car id="28"/> 
    <car id="9"/> 
    
    </source>
    Then a transformation like;

    Code:
    <xsl:stylesheet version = '1.0' 
         xmlns:xsl='http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform'>
    
    <xsl:template match="/"> 
         <TABLE> 
              <xsl:for-each select="//car"> 
                   <xsl:sort data-type="text" select="@id"/> 
                   <TR>
                        <TH>
                             <xsl:text>Car-</xsl:text>
                             <xsl:value-of select="@id"/>
                        </TH>
                   </TR> 
              </xsl:for-each> 
         </TABLE> 
    </xsl:template>
    
    
    </xsl:stylesheet>
    Now that above is just XML markup. But notice the stuff like for-each ? Give it and the source to an XML parser which understand XSL and you get this;

    Code:
    <TABLE>
      <TR>
         <TH>Car-105</TH>
      </TR>
      <TR>
         <TH>Car-11</TH>
      </TR>
      <TR>
         <TH>Car-28</TH>
      </TR>
      <TR>
         <TH>Car-6</TH>
      </TR>
      <TR>
         <TH>Car-9</TH>
      </TR>
    </TABLE>
    Base XML is just markup. Having said it's "loosely typed", you can apply validation rules these days with XML Schema or RELAX NG.

    More an more, XML is being used to build layers of abstraction into applications (particularily n-tier type designs). It's slower yes, but the answer to speed these days is more processing power. And with stuff like XSLT, you're in position to generate content once than transform it to HTML, WAP or whatever.

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard Mincer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    London | UK
    Posts
    1,140
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'd just like to say, Harry, that I'm thoroughly enjoying reading your insights into development in this thread.

    Great stuff.

    EDIT: I should really add Jeremy and Mattias to that.
    Last edited by Mincer; Sep 6, 2002 at 04:46.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Harry,

    I'm not really sure what your guff is. .NET does XML Web Services, HTTP Web Services and SOAP Web Services. MS isn't betting anything on any single technology.

    C++ is included in .NET. Programming syntax is exactly the same, you are simply not able to use certain of the base class libraries.

    .NET allows for base runtime evaluation and data transformation into XML on the fly.

    Find me a single application developer who handcodes. If you can, you can continue to use the "let the application write the code for you" argument, otherwise please throw it out the window.

    "Neither does C++. That's why every C++ source begins with stuff like;
    code:
    #include <iostream.h>"

    What do you think the beginning of a C++ page looks like in .NET? Exactly the same. In C# it's the same minus the <>'s.

    Please mate, I respect your knowledge, but get your facts straight.
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  13. #38
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by HarryF
    Man I've tried it and rather than blowing anything out of the water, it simply blows. If you like WYSIWYG development environments and want one for PHP try: http://studio.qadram.com/ . The fact that web matrix comes with "integrated FTP" says it all to me (ftp is insecure and although many use it - dont - you're giving away your password everything you log in).
    What is it about Web Matrix that that is so bad? You don't HAVE to use FTP, you know. And Quadram looks very promising. However, it's at version 0.1.0.993 and it's site is based on PHP-Nuke at the moment - it feels a bit "shaky", if you know what I mean. I'll definetly be keeping an eye on that one, though. Very cool.

    It may be that everything you do with ASP.NET requires a class, but ASP.NET is still a language - it has it's own syntax as rules.
    As much as you are slapping me around with a trout in this discussion, you are wrong on this one. ASP.NET does not have it's own syntax. It's not a language. It has to be written using C#, VB.NET, J#, C++ or another .NET language. ASP.NET is to .NET what JSP is to Java.

    The real comparison between the PHP environment and .NET is how good are PHP's code libraries and extensions? And I agree - PHP could do better when it comes to classes written in PHP. There's stuff that could be learnt there from .NET's control libraries.
    Ok - let's try to meet on common ground here - the proper comparison would be something like:

    PHP+PEAR vs. .NET+Class library (but execluding Windows forms and console stuff, and including ASP.NET and ADO.NET)

    This is an interesting point. XML (and all the extensions for it) I believe are both markup and programming language these days.

    <code and stuff snipped>

    Hmmm. Very interesting, I must say. XML IS being used in applications quite a bit nowadays, now that you mention it. ASP.NET makes heavy use of it both in Web Forms and configuration files. I'm personally doubtful about XSL, though, since it's a bit too limited to be a proper templating system, in my opinion.

    But anyway, can we meet on common ground and agree what ASP.NET HAS going for it?

    1. The Class Library
    Number one seems to be the class library overall. I didn't mention this in the article, since PHP does have access to 18 gazillions of functions and classes through it's own classes and thru PEAR, and I really didn't think it made such difference. However, as even Harry has agreed on the power of the .NET Class Library, it must be good.

    2. Web Forms
    Well, technically, Web Forms are part of ASP.NET which is part of the class library, but Web Forms are so good they require a second mention, IMHO.

    3. Multi-Language/Language-neutral
    Nuff said.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Neither does C++. That's why every C++ source begins with stuff like;
    code:
    #include <iostream.h>"

    What do you think the beginning of a C++ page looks like in .NET? Exactly the same. In C# it's the same minus the <>'s.

    Please mate, I respect your knowledge, but get your facts straight.
    Now I'm confused too No contest - the point was that PHP, C++, C#, J# are all languages while [.NET] is a framework. I complain about people comparing [.NET] to PHP because they are different things.

    .NET does XML Web Services, HTTP Web Services and SOAP Web Services. MS isn't betting anything on any single technology.
    SOAP is subclass of XML Web Services, all of which run over HTTP, among other protocols.

    Thing is, MS is pushing SOAP big time, along with IBM and HP. Sun are grudgingly joining in. And this is where a large part of the money is going. But SOAP is far from accepted and as a model for the internet, may be fundamentally flawed. If SOAP flops, that's a big slap to MS in terms of credibility and lost money. There's a good discussion of REST here: http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/02/20/rest.html

    The general point though is will people adopt SOAP based web services on the scale MS wants, to get return on it's investment and put the .NET model at the heart of business? If they choose some alternative or simply have no interest at all...

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What I'm saying though is that the actual data transmission format, etc, is different for all 3 web services. I can show you code examples of output from all 3, but it doesn't really matter. Yes, SOAP output is formatted in XML, but it's not the same as an XML Web Service in the way it's accessed or used. Similarly HTTP is different.

    I also realise PHP is only a language. That's one of the reasons I find it frustrating when you call it "multi lingual" when you can "use" Java in it.

    Everyone here knows .NET is "just" a framework. That doesn't make it anything less though. The reason it's being discussed as a whole is that you can't discuss the parts individually. ASP.NET relies on .NET. C# as a development language relies on .NET. .NET Web Services rely on .NET (too many .'s... ).

    You can't simply say "ASP.NET is this" without realising what .NET in and of itself is and what it can do. I realise you're still learning all of this, and you've definitely come a long way, but you are still hanging onto the "me too" mentality.

    You can't knock down an entire suite of technologies just because Web Matrix includes FTP functionality.
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    ASP.NET does not have it's own syntax.
    Good point. I'm so used to think VB[script] when I see ASP, I no longer make the distinction. In fact that's a mistake I'm making all over the place - ASP.NET is like an end result rather than a language. Will correct...

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard gold trophysilver trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    2,479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not sure those web service categories apply - sounds like MS speak.

    There are a number of approaches yes;

    1. Use HTTP (or whatever protocol) to talk directly to sockets on a remote server an receive some non standard text format (or even fetch a web page and "mine" it for data).

    2. Deliver XML documents on request, the same way you would with a web page, using the existing URL name spaces. For example RSS (http://www.sitepoint.com/rss.php) or WDDX. This is the direction to tie in with the REST approach. If you want an example of what REST is about, this is along the right lines;

    http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id...ials&mime=html
    http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=tutorials&mime=xml

    In both cases the same base URL as used: http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=tutorials

    3. Use SOAP / XML-RPC (among other standards) to build an API which binds XML documents to an underlying protocol (such as HTTP or SMTP). The big issue with doing things this way is you defeat the internet namespaces, typically having a single URL like;

    http://www.domain.com/soap_server.php

    This single URL does everything.

    Before we had;

    http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=tutorials
    and
    http://www.zvon.org/index.php?nav_id=tools

    You can see from the URL what is taking place when you go to that address.

    With http://www.domain.com/soap_server.php meanwhile, anything could be happening.

    This introduces a whole load of problems, such as violating the OSI model and requiring a whole new class of application level firewalls.

    This is no criticism of .NET - it can no doubt handle any of those scenarios, but rather MS's strategy (along with IBM and others) are trying to stuff everyone in the SOAP box, with MS in particular throwing alot of money that way and along that lines, they're selling .NET as the best way to build SOAP services.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Addict mgkimsal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    PHP doing what ASP.net does?

    I'd be interested to see PHP do some of the levels of things being done with .NET already
    I'd be interested to see ASP offer real 'include()' functionality, but it probably won't happen.
    Michael Kimsal
    =============================
    groovymag.com - for groovy/grails developers
    jsmag.com - for javascript developers

  19. #44
    .NET inside archigamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Strongsville OH
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well in asp.net there are web controls (.ascx). these are asp.net inclues after do extensive research and asking in the board pretty much got me flamed when i ask and voiced my opinion about it.
    Web Finesse Studios
    Professional, business oriented web hosting and development.

  20. #45
    Node mutilating coot timnz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    516
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by M. Johansson
    PHP+PEAR vs. .NET+Class library (but execluding Windows forms and console stuff, and including ASP.NET and ADO.NET)
    PHP+PEAR isn't really fair, cos PEAR sucks in many respects. PHP+any of the classes available that is best suited to the task at hand, would be a fairer.

    Exit stage left.
    Oh no! the coots are eating my nodes!

  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,123
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: PHP doing what ASP.net does?

    Originally posted by mgkimsal
    I'd be interested to see ASP offer real 'include()' functionality, but it probably won't happen.
    The discussion at hand is about .NET, not ASP. ASP.NET most certainly has include, in fact on a much higher level than PHP does, as you can have classes and superclasses and simply inherit from one to another, cascading down through your application (web or otherwise).

    In fact, you could (and we do) have a few base superclasses which you simply import into every web or real application, and allows those to function. Thus, we only maintain a few sets of superclasses instead of a variety of sites

    Much better than paltry include();
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright

  22. #47
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Re: PHP doing what ASP.net does?

    Originally posted by Jeremy W.


    The discussion at hand is about .NET, not ASP. ASP.NET most certainly has include, in fact on a much higher level than PHP does, as you can have classes and superclasses and simply inherit from one to another, cascading down through your application (web or otherwise).

    In fact, you could (and we do) have a few base superclasses which you simply import into every web or real application, and allows those to function. Thus, we only maintain a few sets of superclasses instead of a variety of sites

    Much better than paltry include();
    ASP.NET made the include obsolete. It's wonderful.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  23. #48
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    592
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Strongly typed vs. loosely typed languages

    Hello Harry and Mattias,

    A while back in this thread you were comparing ASP.NET and PHP on their type of language: strongly typed versus loosely typed. Although this was a fair number of posts back, I still think I need to set some things straight. Because you are both wrong.

    When programming languages were still a new technology and much hadn't been discovered yet, there were mainly two types of languages: compiled languages and interpreted languages. The first were always strongly typed, while the second were always loosely typed. Now there are many more languages in all sorts of combinations. Haskell, for example, is a strongly typed interpreted (functional programming) language, but you don't have to define the types if you don't want to. At run-time the types are automatically computed (with a process called 'type inferencing') to make sure each value has the correct type.

    It makes sense to make a compiled language strongly typed. If a function accepts three arguments and their type is known, the compiler can (at compile-time) compute the number of bytes that must be reserved for these arguments on the stack. When the type of the result of some function is known at compile-time, again the compiler can compute beforehand the number of bytes on the stack needed to store the result. So strongly typed languages make for efficient machine language code.

    As interpreted languages are always compiled dynamically, there is no real need to efficiently compute stack sized. So loose typing makes sense. As I said, compiler/interpreter technology has advanced so it is now possibly to create efficient machine language code from loosely typed code, or to interpret code in a strongly typed language.

    It is not true that loosely typed code leads to code that is worse than strongly typed code, or that strongly typed code decreases the chances of errors being made. Both are equally possible in both languages. Language designers at some point decide whether to make a language strongly typed or loosely typed (or something in between) and then stick with that; changing that decision later on is almost impossible.

    So why is Java strongly typed? Two reasons: 1) compiler techniques in this area are the best known, so implementing an efficient virtual machine was easier. 2) the most popular languages at the time were C and C++, both strongly typed languages. In order to get a great following, Java had to gain acceptance from those coders.

    So why is PHP loosely typed? Again, two reasons: 1) it allows for a simpler syntax, attracting a following of coders used to that (Perl). 2) It's easier to write an interpreter for it. An interpreter for a strongly typed language has more overhead, as the parser must be more advanced, and types must be checked at almost every step of the interpretation process. Now, a type is only evaluation for some value if that value is actually used (not assigned to, but used with a function or operator).

    It should be noted that good programs can be written in any kind of language. Smalltalk for example, an 'old' object-oriented programming language, is used in many critical systems by large corporations. And it is a loosely typed language. And although Java is a clean, strongly typed language, lots of junk is written in it.

    Vincent

  24. #49
    .NET inside archigamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Strongsville OH
    Posts
    1,534
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by Jeremy W.
    Harry,

    I'm not really sure what your guff is. .NET does XML Web Services, HTTP Web Services and SOAP Web Services. MS isn't betting anything on any single technology.

    C++ is included in .NET. Programming syntax is exactly the same, you are simply not able to use certain of the base class libraries.

    .NET allows for base runtime evaluation and data transformation into XML on the fly.

    Find me a single application developer who handcodes. If you can, you can continue to use the "let the application write the code for you" argument, otherwise please throw it out the window.

    "Neither does C++. That's why every C++ source begins with stuff like;
    code:
    #include <iostream.h>"

    What do you think the beginning of a C++ page looks like in .NET? Exactly the same. In C# it's the same minus the <>'s.

    Please mate, I respect your knowledge, but get your facts straight.
    well i do not know about this is was looking in the documentation and the examples in the sdk library and it has a few differences __gc i have never seen that in any c++ code. also i have never seen a : right after the access modifier also as you can see in the documentation. is it ansi? no, however thats what people are being taught though. anyone using vc++.net for learning purposes will probably be disapointed in it because it no longer supports iostream library etc. (this was stated on an amazon review)
    Web Finesse Studios
    Professional, business oriented web hosting and development.

  25. #50
    SitePoint Addict mgkimsal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    209
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Much better than paltry include();

    ASP.NET made the include obsolete. It's wonderful.
    Please explain how include() is 'obsolete'.
    Michael Kimsal
    =============================
    groovymag.com - for groovy/grails developers
    jsmag.com - for javascript developers


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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