Debate - .NET V. PHP: Top 6 Reasons to Use .NET

[M. Johansson]

If I were a client, I would hardly deal with a company or individual who cannot afford modern computing equipment. If you can run Photoshop, you can test ASP.NET.

But you are right, Linux (not necessarily Open Source in general) uses computer resources more "efficiently". But as Harry pointed out earlier, if something needs more performance, throw hardware at the problem, since hardware is incredibly cheap.

[HarryF]

Or you could just use Web Forms.

How are you going to access the J2EE application if it doesn't have a SOAP interface?

I don't see at all how you avoid locking yourself in by building an in-house bridge using Apache/PHP between Java and .NET over SOAP.

OK first of all, SOAP is a w3 XML standard - if all applications involved have SOAP interfaces, you can choose whatever you like to aggregate them into a single web interface.

But let's say none of them have SOAP interfaces - that they're not designed to interoperate with anything else.

You choices are:

Build SOAP interfaces for all applications - may be a problem.

If you're just talking about a .NET application, adding the interface is no problem (assuming you're happy to use Windows as the web server) but how are you going to access all those Java applications and the J2EE framework (plus all the Java libraries) with no interface?

The same applies to J2EE if you choose that as the platform for your web interface. Although you have things like Tomcat for Apache to allow this to be possible, for an enterprise web site you'll need an expensive application server like IBM's web sphere to be reliable. Also there's no native means to access .NET.

If you choose PHP as the means to deploy onto the web, you can access both the .NET and J2EE environments natively. You'll also be able to access COM+ and perhaps even compile PHP to be able to use C/C++ libaries your company has written. You'll be able to use the worlds most reliable and respected web server Apache (which also happens to be free) which your company perhaps already uses.

By doing so, you're not locked into buying all the other technologies Microsoft or Sun want you to, at least as far as your web site is concerned.

The overall point is PHP is able to access more existing technologies than either .NET or J2EE, without those technologies needing to be altered.

In general, corporate IT today is stuck between two opposing forces. On the one hand they have heaps of "legacy" software written in all sorts of languages on on all sorts of platforms, such as massive C++ apps which right now have no easy way to provide themselves with HTTP SOAP interfaces.

On the other hand they're pushed to deliver "easy to deploy" web interfaces as opposite to locally installed clients, as well as providing XML interfaces on the Internet to their existing business applications.

For the web interface you need the technology that has most access to all of these. That technology will probably also need to be able to run in multiple environments. In other words in trying to integrate all these applications, you need a technology that can handle anything.

Right now I'd say that only applies to two languages - Perl and PHP.

[firepages]

Does no one ever use Oracle for instance or for that matter MS-SQL, do no PHP sites require transactions, foreign keys, triggers, stored procedures etc?

.... lots of peeps do , the native OCI functions of PHP can talk to Oracle much faster than ASP for instance + you missed out postgreSQL,sybase,Interbase,informix - all of which PHP has native connection libraries for, though if you really want to use ODBC....


MySQL/PHP is so popular because mysql for all its knockers (oo-errr) is excellent at what it does and perfect for much of what the internet is about today, course you could use Oracle for a guestbook?

Of course PHP scales well past your average guestbook & MySQL daily does things that any respectable DBAdmin will tell you is impossible for a 'no better than a flat-file' type DB.


WebForms::

well I didnt want to be the first to say this but what is so great about web-forms ? to replicate the functionality that is shown in the previous example in PHP is pretty trivial ... I usemy own libraries to achieve the same results and I am hardly some uber programmer ... or am I missing something ?

[HarryF]

well I didnt want to be the first to say this but what is so great about web-forms ? to replicate the functionality that is shown in the previous example in PHP is pretty trivial ... I usemy own libraries to achieve the same results and I am hardly some uber programmer ... or am I missing something ?

You missed nothing! Everything that .NET does with stuff like forms, "data grids" etc. etc. is completely reproducable (and in most cases already reproduced) in PHP.

I'll give Microsoft their due in that they're delivering a single, organised and unified class library, which helps beginners but for PHP developers who've been around, we've probably worked all this stuff out.

And aside from Pear, other class libraries exist for PHP. One I'm pretty impressed with, given it's tied to a complete framework is that with ezPublish. Course Mattias says ezPublish is slow. Well if someone wants to see a fully functioning ezPublish site, head to: http://www.webservices.org/ - pretty speedy if you ask me.

Otherwise, MS investing so much effort in their class library assumes that they've found the right approach to building web based interfaces.

I beg to differ - methinks the future of web pages lies in the "data defining the interface". Man I wish I had infinite time... here's some things to tickle the imagination;

Using MySQL as the example, PHP has functions like mysql_fetch_field - have a look at the kind of information that returns.

Now that could be used to create XML Schema describing the nature the data in a table.

You then need to add to that schema some information which can be used to "link" to the formatting objects (tables, lists etc.) defined by XSL and XForms.

So now you have a schema that describes the data in the database and makes some "comment" on how that data should be delivered if it was to be made a user interface.

The you fetch data from the database, you turn it into XML document, assigning the schema to it.

The you use XSLT to convert the data in the XML document to a user interface, based on the XML schema and hey presto - instant interface in HTML, XHTML, WML, PDF or whatever you desire.

In other words you could create a table in a database and instantly the user interface is ready to use.

Anyway - just a scam right now (along side that PHP-GTK messenger )

[mgkimsal]

Originally posted by M. Johansson


Yes, why in the nine hells is mySQL so popular? It's fast and easy to use, but that's about it. Why is not postgres used on at least some PHP hosts? Perhaps the fact that mySQL is used so often with PHP tells us a bit about how complex the average PHP solution really is...

People that use only MySQL, and want to do advanced stuff, are forced to do it in the app layer rather than the database layer, but generally anything's still possible.

The reason postgres isn't used more is that it's just weird. Yeah, whatever features it may have are great, but it does not go out of its way to make it easy for ISPs to install it and be able to grant permissions to appropriate users easily. This may be changing, but we test out postgres every few months, and have books on it, and have gone through the fairly meager documentation re: installation. It's just plain more difficult to set up - most people aren't going to give it a shot because of that initial barrier.

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by HarryF
You missed nothing! Everything that .NET does with stuff like forms, "data grids" etc. etc. is completely reproducable (and in most cases already reproduced) in PHP.

But for heavens sake, give me the link, then, so I can implement this wonderful functionality into PHP. And exactly everything ASP.NET does can be replicated in PHP, just not as fast and beautifully.

[HarryF]

Choose your weapons;

extremephp: http://www.extremephp.org/ - some excellent classes and a completely new way of manipulating data - documentation

Plankton: http://www.sea-incorporated.com/plan...nce/index.html - not bad

Then there's the aging phpLib: http://phplib.sourceforge.net/

And here's a million more which I know nothing about but also have some kind of form controls;

http://binarycloud.tigris.org/

http://phphtmllib.sourceforge.net/

http://www.javuh.com/

http://freshmeat.net/projects/druidaphplib/

http://enzyme.sourceforge.net/

http://gpfr.sourceforge.net/

http://www.simian.ca/index/opensource

http://liquidbytes.net/40.html?docinput[flavour]=2&docinput[lang]=en

http://lilly.devconsult.de/~sven/

These are all class libraries with their own types of form controls. And that's just a selection - some will be excellent, others poor.

The difference with PHP is choice and that's important. The point I was making with XML is by way of example - ASP.NET coders are trusting Microsoft to come up with the best methodology for software design. Don't mistake ease of use for good practices. I'll be interested to hear some real case studies a year down the line from big companies that put their business online with .NET (not the MS hype but real stories).

[dhtmlgod]

I don’t doubt that most things in the .NET framework can be reproduced, or commercially available, either free or other wise. I’ve created classes to create things like DataSets, generate forms and ASP to handle it.

The point with the framework is that its all there already, no need to produce anything, install 3rd-party add-ons and learn to use it. The majority of functionality is already there! And it’s its not, create it and install it into the Framework.

If you don’t like Microsoft’s solutions, don’t use it. Simple as that. If you think PHP is faster, good for you.

I make my living from ASP and the .NET framework; it’s my language of choice. I also think dodges vipers are the coolest cars ever, but that’s just me.

I like the Framework; I like the quick development time. With strict deadlines, and difficult clients, I like anything that makes my life easier.

. NET does this.

I want to be able to easily code a function, encapsulate it and deploy it wherever I want, whenever I want, without having to touch the host and use any 3rd-party software.

.NET does this.

I want to be able to scale a project from a small desktop application using an access database to a fully functional web site, and then have them transfer data seamlessly and easily.

.NET does this.

I don’t want to have to tackle a new learning curve, learn a whole new language, OS platform and tools.

I don’t know exactly the point of this post, as you’ll just quote bits of it and say “aaahhh, but PHP can…”

Frankly, I don’t care.

I develop with .NET, I like it better than ASP and PHP.
I like McDonalds better than Burger King.
I like cats better than dogs.
I like Sprite better than 7UP.
And some day the Bulls will rule again.

[Mincer]

Originally posted by dhtmlgod
.NET does this.

I don’t want to have to tackle a new learning curve, learn a whole new language, OS platform and tools.

Me neither, so I'll pass on .NET, and rolling out the ,NET framework and all it's EULA entails.

Originally posted by dhtmlgod
I also think dodges vipers are the coolest cars ever, but that’s just me.

This is actually a very interesting point. You have a car that has serious handling deficiencies, poor engineering, and a serious weight problem. The solution? Give it a catchy name and stick the biggest engine in it you can find to make it go faster.

Sound familiar? Hmmmm....

I'll go for some good old fashioned European engineering and ingenuity thanks. Over ten years old, but still the ultimate car:



Matt.

[dhtmlgod]

This is actually a very interesting point. You have a car that has serious handling deficiencies, poor engineering, and a serious weight problem. The solution? Give it a catchy name and stick the biggest engine in it you can find to make it go faster.[/B][/QUOTE]


True, but with some tuning and shifting that weight around, its fine (as far as GT3 goes anyway)

[HarryF]

Gotta agree with DHTMLGod - that's a fair summary of the realities of web development with .NET.

Personally I'll take an AC Cobra

[voostind]

The reason postgres isn't used more is that it's just weird. Yeah, whatever features it may have are great, but it does not go out of its way to make it easy for ISPs to install it and be able to grant permissions to appropriate users easily. This may be changing, but we test out postgres every few months, and have books on it, and have gone through the fairly meager documentation re: installation. It's just plain more difficult to set up - most people aren't going to give it a shot because of that initial barrier.

Would that be on the Windows operating system? Because, I find PostgreSQL actually much easier to set up on Unix than MySQL... And there is a lot of documentation for PostgreSQL on installation, usage, SQL, and so on. Maybe you didn't find it, but it sure is there.

People are using MySQL because they always want to learn the hard way. It's the same as with the register_globals thingie. It defaulted to on, so everybody used it. I, of course, didn't, because I already knew (and read) that that was a dangerous/stupid thing to do. That didn't matter to anyone, apparantly. Now that register_globals is by default turned off, people are finally rewriting their code, because they HAVE TO, not because it's better. The same goes for MySQL. PHP started out with MySQL (LAMP), so MySQL was the only choice in DBMS when working with PHP. Much has changed, many other DBMSs are now available in PHP, and every single one of them much better than MySQL. But it will first take a disaster before people will stop using MySQL. Sadly enough.

Vincent

[M. Johansson]

Yeah, that sums it up. I'll take a Diablo any day:


... and while the libraries Harry mentioned are very, very impressive, and I'll probably end up using them some day, they are simply not as powerful and sleek as Web Forms and DataList/DataGrids. None of them separates HTML and PHP the way Web Forms does, as far as I could see. A designer would have to learn PHP to use them.

[pippo]

Mattias,
just a note:

<html><body><head>
<script language="C#" runat=server>
  void Page_Load(Object sender, EventArgs e) {
    if (!Page.IsPostBack) {
      string[] guitarMakers = {"Gibson", "Fender", "Paul Reed Smith", "Hamer"};
      SelectMe.DataSource = guitarMakers;
      ListBoxSelect.DataSource = guitarMakers;
      RadioButtonSelect.DataSource = guitarMakers;
      DataBind();
    }
  }
</script></head>
<body>

<form runat=server>

  ListBox Selection: </br>
  <asp:ListBox id="ListBoxSelect" runat=server /> 
  </br> </br>
  
  Radio Button Selection: </br>
  <asp:RadioButtonList id="RadioButtonSelect" runat=server /> </br>

  Plain old selection: </br>
  <Select id="SelectMe" runat=server /> 

</form>

</body> </html>

I would not say that
"That is very nice spearation of HTML and code"

Doing that you are not separating the domain logic from the presentation layer,
or better you embedded them togheter.
The same file contains the "domain logic" which is the content of the function Page_Load and the "presentation layer" which is the part that contains the html tags.

Another obversation is that you are using "asp tags" to generate html tags.
I would prefer to use "custom" or "asp" tags to do "logic" such as an iterator than generating html code.
Doing that you have some html tags written by you and some that are inside custom "asp tags".

I'm not trying to advocate php here,
but I'm trying to make some thoughts about how to write code.

Mine are not criticisms,
I'm new on these arguments so any thoughts is welcomed .

Important,
I think that writing that code your aim was to illustrate the use of web forms.


pippo

[HarryF]

Another obversation is that you are using "asp tags" to generate html tags.
I would prefer to use "custom" or "asp" tags to do "logic" such as an iterator than generating html code.
Doing that you have some html tags written by you and some that are inside custom "asp tags".

That's a very important point! This repeats what I've trying to say the the .NET framework is taking you into a particular methodology for web application development.

Alternatives exist and right now I think I can safely say no one from Microsoft to Sun to Joe PHPHacker is 100% sure what the best way to create web applications is.

One prime example is the Coldfusion Fusebox approach which has proved exteremly successful for web apps. (PHP equivalent here: http://php-fusebox.sourceforge.net/). This attempts to completely seperate code from HTML. Although it's perfectly possible to reproduce the fusebox approach in .NET, you're going to have trouble making use of form controls etc in that architecture and will probably end up adopting something different.

Much as everyone's been saying ASP.NET scales well, I'm waiting to hear about applications written the .NET "way" and how they stand the test of time - when you have a massive application, how was it to redesign major parts? If you did what MS encouraged you to, did it turn out to be the best way?

Methinks it's time for me to a look at the IBuySpy architecture, as this is supposed to be an example of how to build the ASP.NET way.

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by pippo
I would not say that
"That is very nice spearation of HTML and code"

Oh, this is my fault for not pointing this out.. You do not have to put the code in <script> tags. In fact, that's stupid to do, for the very reason that it mixes code and HTML. The reason I used it at all is that it's very good for demonstrating code, due to it's simple syntax. A "real" aspx page has something like this on top:

<%@ Page language="c#" Codebehind="index.aspx.cs" Inherits="NameSpace1.Class2" %>

... that's called CodeBehind.

Another obversation is that you are using "asp tags" to generate html tags.
I would prefer to use "custom" or "asp" tags to do "logic" such as an iterator than generating html code.
Doing that you have some html tags written by you and some that are inside custom "asp tags".

Actually, you don't have to use <asp: tags for HTML content. ASP.NET offers controls for standard HTML controls, too. All you need to do is add runat="server" in them, and you have access to them in a similiar way I used <asp: tags in the examples below. For instance:

<table id="Table1" CellPadding=5 CellSpacing=0 Border="1" runat="server" />

Now, to add a row to this table, we would do this:

HtmlTableRow r = new HtmlTableRow();
              
for (int i=0; i<numcells; i++) {
  HtmlTableCell c = new HtmlTableCell();
  string CellText = "row " + j.ToString() + ", cell " + i.ToString();
  c.Controls.Add(CellText);
  r.Cells.Add(c);
}

r.Cells.Add(c);
Table1.Rows.Add(r);

Note that if we do this codebehind, the ONLY changes done to the .aspx page is the addition of the Codebehind tag on top, and the addition of runat="server" attributes. That is very nifty.

While I agree that custom tags should mostly be used for looping and such, custom tags may have their place, because you can easily define your own tags, called User Controls. The <asp: tags are really just User Controls that are pre-made by MS. It's very easy to define special tags like this:

Goes on top:

<%@ Register TagPrefix="Pippo" TagName="Message" Src="pippo.ascx" %>

Markup goes like this:

<Pippo:Message id="PippoMessage" MessageText="This is a custom message!" Color="blue" runat="server"/>

code in pippo.ascx goes like this:

<script language="C#" runat="server">
  //Note that this code can also be "CodeBehinded",
  //just like in the earlier example.
  
  public String Color = "blue";
  public String Text = "This is a simple user control!";
</script>
<span id="Message" style="color:<%=Color%>"><%=Text%></span>

Of course, that can be MUCH more advanced, such as specific generation tags for <forum:post> or why not <sitepoint:editize> tags.

[Jeremy W.]

Originally posted by HarryF
Much as everyone's been saying ASP.NET scales well, I'm waiting to hear about applications written the .NET "way" and how they stand the test of time - when you have a massive application, how was it to redesign major parts? If you did what MS encouraged you to, did it turn out to be the best way?

Somehow I got unsubbed from this thread... odd...

Anyways, put it this way, we have a massive application we're working:

- Main Controller
- Profiling System
- Service Authentication System
- User Authentication System
- Mailing List Subsystem
- Streaming Media Management Subsystem
- Timesheet Subsystem
- HR Subsystem

And that's just what's done or being worked on now... We needed to swap out the Mailing List System's Controller's sending method from unvalidated SMTP to validated SMTP.

It required changes across multiple layers, multiple webservices, and effectively changed the way one of our existing Business Logic systems sent mass mailings and communicated to the mailing list subsystem.

What code changes were required? None.

Another example? We recently needed to move our database server from one servername and box (sinai) to another (ms-sql), we were also changing versions of SQL Server (up to 2K from 7.0), and were going behind a new firewall.

Our system is setup so that all calls from system to system are generated through the Controller, which then passes the current system reference (Active TCP/IP connections, effectively). System references are assigend by the systems themselves when they come online, with dynamic port configuration, etc.

So, what happened when one of our processes crashed and we decided to not only change the entire TimeSheet system, but upgrade at the same time (why not, right) and change servers? It was down for 10 minutes while we packaged a new installation program, installed it and brought it online.

So, we've done more than "redesign major parts". We've redeveloped, redeployed and redistributed entire portions of our internal system. The only reason there is downtime is when something truly odd happens (in the above case it was an MIS issue, server stopped communicating externally).

Love to see other applications make the above claims to fame.

Everytime someone gets into what the limitations with .NET are, and how things are done in certain ways and certain things are impossible (like securing web services) we prove it's possible. I really should get a pay raise.

[mgkimsal]

Originally posted by HarryF
Choose your weapons;

extremephp: http://www.extremephp.org/ - some excellent classes and a completely new way of manipulating data - documentation

Plankton: http://www.sea-incorporated.com/plan...nce/index.html - not bad

Then there's the aging phpLib: http://phplib.sourceforge.net/

And here's a million more which I know nothing about but also have some kind of form controls;

http://binarycloud.tigris.org/

http://phphtmllib.sourceforge.net/

http://www.javuh.com/

http://freshmeat.net/projects/druidaphplib/

http://enzyme.sourceforge.net/

http://gpfr.sourceforge.net/

http://www.simian.ca/index/opensource

http://liquidbytes.net/40.html?docinput[flavour]=2&docinput[lang]=en

http://lilly.devconsult.de/~sven/

These are all class libraries with their own types of form controls. And that's just a selection - some will be excellent, others poor.

Harry - as much as I love PHP, this is the biggest *PROBLEM* with PHP. There are too many ways to do the same thing. The wheel keeps getting reinvented. Yes, there are neat things in some libraries, but you have to pick through them and learn loads about each before you can assess the pros and cons of each, and then you end up using one but 'tweaking' it 'just a bit'.

With the MS way (and Java, more or less) there are simply loads of libraries to cover just about any eventuality. There is one 'official' way to do something, which nearly everyone learns, and they become able to be interchanged with other people. That's both good and bad - you get treated like a commodity by some companies, but you pretty much know you can go to many other companies and have one less thing to worry about when starting to get into their code. (Are they using PEAR? PHPlib? a beta-binarycloud? Drupal? postnuke? phpapp?)

The other major problem with most of these libraries you mention (not all, but most) is that they're worked on for awhile, then dropped. You either have to become a library architect to finish things the authors didn't finish, or find new libraries from other people to start using.

Invariably there are security holes in these libraries because many of them are written by part-time coders who've jumped on the PHP bandwagon (or the 'GPL is awesome' bandwagon) but really have no interest in doing anything more than using a sourceforge page as a learning exercise and/or a display of coolness.

It's not all *horrible*, but rather than just having
one common core set of libraries which are 'standard' in the industry, which are documented and will be supported for at least a few years (ASP/Java) you're perpetually stuck in a DIY mode in the PHP world.

Note, I am biased, because our LogiCreate package does 'compete' in some sense with many of the packages you listed above. The primary differentiator is that we're not 'open source', and people want support from a company, which we are.

[firepages]

"The same goes for MySQL. PHP started out with MySQL (LAMP), so MySQL was the only choice in DBMS when working with PHP. Much has changed, many other DBMSs are now available in PHP, and every single one of them much better than MySQL. But it will first take a disaster before people will stop using MySQL. Sadly enough."

well postgreSQL was probably the DB of choice for PHP not that long ago, sadly it had some really daft issues that whilst fixed now.. well its hard to forget innit

That and the fact that it is not x-platform (& yes I know it runs under cygwin) , most developers I know still use win32 for development, if MySQL Oracle Interbase etc can all run on win32 then postgreSQL could at least try.

MySQL is perfect for a myriad of situations (the ones that we come accross on a daily basis) and is much faster and stabler than most will give it credit for, fact is it works and works well, many regard this is as a bug

well of topic anyway ! errr back to the point...

"But for heavens sake, give me the link, then, so I can implement this wonderful functionality into PHP"

well I was just going to point you to the PHP manual which is pretty much all you need ... of course you have to write stuff, but at least you then can go where you want to go today... not where you are told.

[Jeremy W.]

I go where I'm told?

[mgkimsal]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.


Somehow I got unsubbed from this thread... odd...

Anyways, put it this way, we have a massive application we're working:

- Main Controller
- Profiling System
- Service Authentication System
- User Authentication System
- Mailing List Subsystem
- Streaming Media Management Subsystem
- Timesheet Subsystem
- HR Subsystem

And that's just what's done or being worked on now... We needed to swap out the Mailing List System's Controller's sending method from unvalidated SMTP to validated SMTP.

It required changes across multiple layers, multiple webservices, and effectively changed the way one of our existing Business Logic systems sent mass mailings and communicated to the mailing list subsystem.

What code changes were required? None.

Another example? We recently needed to move our database server from one servername and box (sinai) to another (ms-sql), we were also changing versions of SQL Server (up to 2K from 7.0), and were going behind a new firewall.

Our system is setup so that all calls from system to system are generated through the Controller, which then passes the current system reference (Active TCP/IP connections, effectively). System references are assigend by the systems themselves when they come online, with dynamic port configuration, etc.

So, what happened when one of our processes crashed and we decided to not only change the entire TimeSheet system, but upgrade at the same time (why not, right) and change servers? It was down for 10 minutes while we packaged a new installation program, installed it and brought it online.

So, we've done more than "redesign major parts". We've redeveloped, redeployed and redistributed entire portions of our internal system. The only reason there is downtime is when something truly odd happens (in the above case it was an MIS issue, server stopped communicating externally).

Love to see other applications make the above claims to fame.

LogiCreate can and does make similar claims, but it's not something which is 'free'. This isn't a sales pitch, but I do want to make it known that people *are* doing enterprise stuff with PHP.

I'm curious how you completely changed the TimeSheet thing in 10 minutes? Do you mean just brought on a new app that was already written? Or are you suggesting you - from scratch - rewrote an entire TimeSheet app which was different than the previous one - in 10 minutes? Perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote.

LC is broken up into a controller system which handles requests, does authentication and authorization checking for the various services which are 'plugged in' to the central system, allows for authentication based on user information, or even specific function names ('only users in group X can run the 'foo' function', for example).

Is our stuff perfect? No. Has it been used in 'enterprise' situations with good results? Yes. Why PHP? When we'd started developing it (and deploying with clients large and small) nothing even remotely equivalent existed in the ASP world. Trying to design this kind of modular system in ASP was too much of a kludge. Would it be difficult NOW in ASP .NET? Probably not - you're talking about how you've done it, so it's obviously not impossible. But it wasn't available when we started, and there doesn't seem to be much point in stopping now.

[Jeremy W.]

The post was in response to Harry's "how would .NET react to [x]".

We didn't redo the TimeSheet application in 10 minutes, we had a production level upgrade ready to go and simply hadn't deployed it yet (since it would have meant taking the service down for a few minutes, and we were going to do it at night).

I'm not knocking PHP or even saying "can PHP do THIS", just answering questions

[Mincer]

Originally posted by mgkimsal
There is one 'official' way to do something, which nearly everyone learns, and they become able to be interchanged with other people.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how writing all your code in the way that MS wishes is such a good thing? Surely choosing the library that works the way that YOU want to, is infinitely better than changing the way you work (even if you KNOW that it's not the best way to solve a particular problem), because you want to work with one single library.

And if we're bringing security issues into it, knowing the speed at which MS addresses internet security problems (SSL??), is it a good idea that every .NET website will have the same security issues when they are uncovered.

[Jeremy W.]

Saying using .NET makes you do things "the MS way" is like saying using PHP makes you do things the Zend way. Utter crap.

[Mincer]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
Saying using .NET makes you do things "the MS way" is like saying using PHP makes you do things the Zend way. Utter crap.

Don't take it out on me, I'm just quoteing one of the pro .NET posts..