Debate - .NET V. PHP: Top 10 .NET Myths Exposed

[Mincer]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
I wasn't betting on Mono at all. I could drum up a 1M$ budget which should be sufficient to make all our projects run on xNix if it was required.

MS Axiom - If in doubt, throw lots of money at the problem.

If this part of your ".NET is already cross-platform" or ".NET is cheaper" arguement?

[Jeremy W.]

No, it's just smart project management. You hope that the plans for the future will come to be, but you are aware and plan for what might be.

1. We don't need cross-platform
2. If we did, by the time we did Mono would likely be a reality
3. If we did, and Mono wasn't a reality, we would need to judge our exact needs
4. If we did, Mono wasn't a reality and our needs were such as to justify "throwing money at it" (you mean xNix companies don't pay their developers?) then yes, I would

If you feel this is the "MS Approach", then I'd hate to work for any other kind of company.

[mgkimsal]

Originally posted by HarryF

The other big argument is price of purchasing software (I ignore any discussion of development costs for Jeremy's sake). Putting together enterprise Java costs big bucks. Enterprise .NET is probably cheaper but still expensive.

Come on Harry! How many times does every have to beat it into you? Developing in .NET costs absolutely ZERO! It's completely 100% free! In fact, developing for PHP is actually WAY MORE expensive because you'd have to change over every single line of code ever written in your company and retrain your entire staff to begin writing one line of PHP.

I don't think you've been paying attention to this thread. PHP = expensive. .NET = FREE ($0). Pay closer attention next time!

[Jeremy W.]

With credit to Harry, though, Enterprise development in .NET is more expensive than in PHP. Yes, in PHP, you'd need to buy many modules and tools, but that doesn't compare to the of a typical Enterprise setup in .NET.

For instance, here's what we would have spent had we not been a charity:

3 servers: 4,000$
SQL Server Processor License: 10,000$
Windows 2k Advanced Server & Support: 6,000$
Visual Studio.NET Licenses: 4,000$

So, yeah, it can be expensive, but that is on the Enterprise Level. The level where if you are using Java, you'll want to use Oracle. Single Processor License of Oracle? 80,000$.

So, yeah, .NET is very INexpensive for Enterprise Development, and it's free for hobby webmaster development. Really as simple as that.

How much would PHP cost in Enterprise land? Dunno, you'd probably want to use Oracle for your DB, as MySQL really wouldn't cut it (it "could", but it's not enterprise suited either), plus you'd probably have a multitude of 500$ scripts you'd need to buy.

So, which is cheaper for Enterprise? PHP could be, unless you went with Oracle, DB2, Informix, etc. If you did, well, .NET would still stand as cheaper.

[mgkimsal]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
With credit to Harry, though, Enterprise development in .NET is more expensive than in PHP. Yes, in PHP, you'd need to buy many modules and tools, but that doesn't compare to the of a typical Enterprise setup in .NET.

For instance, here's what we would have spent had we not been a charity:

3 servers: 4,000$
SQL Server Processor License: 10,000$
Windows 2k Advanced Server & Support: 6,000$
Visual Studio.NET Licenses: 4,000$

So, yeah, it can be expensive, but that is on the Enterprise Level. The level where if you are using Java, you'll want to use Oracle. Single Processor License of Oracle? 80,000$.

So, yeah, .NET is very INexpensive for Enterprise Development, and it's free for hobby webmaster development. Really as simple as that.

How much would PHP cost in Enterprise land? Dunno, you'd probably want to use Oracle for your DB, as MySQL really wouldn't cut it (it "could", but it's not enterprise suited either), plus you'd probably have a multitude of 500$ scripts you'd need to buy.

So, which is cheaper for Enterprise? PHP could be, unless you went with Oracle, DB2, Informix, etc. If you did, well, .NET would still stand as cheaper.

Where on earth are those numbers coming from?

oraclestore.oracle.com reports a perpetual single proc license for oracle 9i enterprise edition at $40k (I'm willing to bet you could get a discount on that for a charity too).

Likewise, SQLServer 2000 - single proc enterprise edition is $20k. This is from the http://microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/production.asp page. And to use all the advanced features you'd need Win2k Advanced server, which according to http://microsoft.com/windows2000/adv...ng/default.asp costs $4k each.

Not sure what your '3 servers' are - hardware?

Getting closer to 'retail' published figures, your numbers would be at least $10k higher, and the Oracle $40k lower.

The MS side in this case would still come out somewhat lower ($30k v $40k Oracle plus Linux) and depending on the number of servers required, the MS version eventually would cost more.

http://www-132.ibm.com/webapp/wcs/st...8927&x=10&y=10 shows the DB2 price for Linux to be $20k. (version 7.2, can't find 8.x pricing).

Linux + DB2 = $20k
MSSQL + Windows = $24k

It's still not even - MS has loads more *unified* development stuff, but it's not cut and dried to say MS is always cheaper. I don't know why you keep trying to prove this. For every example you come up with where MS is cheap, someone else can provide an example where Linux/PHP + something else is just as cheap or cheaper or just a hair more expensive.

If the cost of the initial development stuff is such a 'fraction of the TCO' which people try to argue, then why keep harping on about the costs of the initial development stuff in the first place?

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by HarryF
Fair point on the jobserve searches although I'd make one further search;

ASP OR .NET (without VB) 709 Jobs

Oh and another interesting one;

J2EE: 433
.NET: 356

I ran a further search:

PHP (without Perl): 81

[dhtmlgod]

Hmm... how much have we spent... this is what I (no body else does development) use and how much it cost

.NET Framework £0
ASP.NET Web Matrix £0
MSDE £0
Hosting/Server Space £0 (goes to client)
Windows 2000 £0 (already had it)
MS XML Notepad £0

I miss anything?

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by dhtmlgod
Hmm... how much have we spent... this is what I (no body else does development) use and how much it cost

.NET Framework £0
ASP.NET Web Matrix £0
MSDE £0
Hosting/Server Space £0 (goes to client)
Windows 2000 £0 (already had it)
MS XML Notepad £0

I miss anything?

Yes - this is important! I kind of forgot this - if you are a freelancing web developer (or a web development company) ASP.NET costs ya nothing!

[Jeremy W.]

Michael,

I was simply saying this: Sure we can prove that .NET is free for small-scale stuff. But, when you get to a higher level you have to spend cash, no matter which solution you go with.

The difference between an nNix setup and an MS setup at that point, in terms of cost, really is negligible. All things being equal (which, of course, they aren't) it will end up being about preference and where the talent is.

My pricing really was from memory, sorry if I got my figures wrong. At the end of the day there's a cost. Sure, it's a fraction of hte cost of TCO, but I'm not the one who keeps "harping" about it.

Someone keeps popping in and saying "sure, but xNix is cheaper", or someone makes one of those statements. Neither is inherently any cheaper than the other at either the hobbyist or the enterprise level.

[Mincer]

Originally posted by M. Johansson


Yes - this is important! I kind of forgot this - if you are a freelancing web developer (or a web development company) ASP.NET costs ya nothing!

Ok, but neither does php, and hosting will cost my clients less...

[dhtmlgod]

OK, so the cost is now a mute point...

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by HarryF
This I'd have to agree with;

.NET and Java are both well suited for enterprise development.

PHP is well suited for small-scale development

PHP can do enterprise development

All in favour say aye. Aye.

[dhtmlgod]

Uhm... kinda... .NET is also suitable for small scale development...

[firepages]

Windows 2000 £0 (already had it)

? I already have a house and a car .... seem to recall paying for them though ?

Hosting/Server Space £0 (goes to client)

... its called a profit margin


........................................................
<my_version_of_events>
J2EE is well suited for enterprise development.
JAVA is not well suited for small scale development
.NET will probably proove to be well suited for enterprise development
.NET will also be well suited for small scale development
PHP is well suited for small-scale development
PHP is suitable for enterprise development and is used as such
ColdFusion runs enterprise applications despite being utter carp
<my_version_of_events>

[mgkimsal]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
Someone keeps popping in and saying "sure, but xNix is cheaper", or someone makes one of those statements. Neither is inherently any cheaper than the other at either the hobbyist or the enterprise level.

Glad we agree. The only real 'cost' argument you can make is developer time. Developers who already KNOW MS stuff and have invested time learning it are generally faster with MS tools and ASP stuff. Developers who have years of Java behind them (or PHP) will be faster in Java (or PHP) or whatever...

[Jeremy W.]

? I already have a house and a car .... seem to recall paying for them though ?

Tacking the cost of the OS onto the cost of .NET would be like tacking the cost of your car onto the cost of a new windshield wiper.

[Jeremy W.]

Originally posted by mgkimsal
Glad we agree. The only real 'cost' argument you can make is developer time. Developers who already KNOW MS stuff and have invested time learning it are generally faster with MS tools and ASP stuff. Developers who have years of Java behind them (or PHP) will be faster in Java (or PHP) or whatever...

Actually... Since I've got one PHP/Delphi guy on my team, and 1 Java guy, I have no problem refuting this.

Applications that took them each 3 and 2 weeks (respectively) to do as experienced developers in their areas, took 4 and 3 days to do (respectively) in .NET, without using our existing classes and objects.

Had they used what we have now, that time could easily have been down to 2-3 days.

.NET allows much faster rapid application development than I've ever seen.

I'll concede that some developers are stronger in Java and thus will still developer faster in their environment of choice, but I'm only conceding that as a possibility and not the norm becuase I have yet to see a Java guy who actually tried .NET out (fully, not just grudgingly) who wasn't at least as fast on his first time around, if not faster.

[neil100]

Originally posted by firepages



"Hosting/Server Space £0 (goes to client)"

... its called a profit margin

Go and look at the appointments section of a IT industry publication, then look at how much the Java and C++ programmers salaries are then compare that to the fraction that PHP programmers are offered (providing you can actually find any job listings for PHP programmers). When .Net has fully established itself, the salary for .Net programmers will be around that of the Java guys, not the feeble amount that PHP positions offer, ...that is known as reality.

[firepages]

Go and look at the appointments section of a IT industry publication, then look at how much the Java and C++ programmers salaries are then compare that to the fraction that PHP programmers are offered (providing you can actually find any job listings for PHP programmers). When .Net has fully established itself, the salary for .Net programmers will be around that of the Java guys, not the feeble amount that PHP positions offer, ...that is known as reality..

? whats that got to do with what I said ?

Jeremy , I appreciate what you are saying and I really don't think the cost aspect (as part of the overall cost of a major project) is of concern in most enterprise situations.

however to say something costs $0 when that is plainly not the case (however trivial the point) has to be pointed out.. especially by ourselves (those dealing in 1's and 0's true/false etc)

..................

neil, yes there is big money in java, and in ASP (.NET to follow perhaps) .... adding tremendously no doubt to the TCO of a project, thanks for pointing that one out

[Jeremy W.]

firepages: Feel free to point out the cost of small-scale .NET development.

I mean, cause I don't see any (beyond the fact that your windshield washer cost you 15,000$ because your car was that much).

For Enterprise, we've already shown that .NET is both comparable (to PHP) and cheaper (to Java).

Really, TCO is the biggest issue here. So, we can get into it if you want. I mean, we've already defined speed, enterprise development and the considerations thereof, so why not get into TCO.

We'll start from a "small app" point of view, mainly to favour PHP, but if we can go to Enterprise if anyone wants to lead the way, I just know that it's hard to quantify the cost of "red tape".

.NET
Initial cost: 0
Added development cost: 0
Normal running maintenance cost: +15% over PHP for hosting
Upgrade costs: 0
PITA Factor: Low, after acclimatization
User Training Costs: 0, it's a website
Documentation costs: Lower, auto-documentation is included, as code generated includes XML info sheets similar to standard documentation processes
Deployment costs: 0, beyond hosting which is covered in maintenance
Critical Failure costs: Lower, due to faster RAD

By "Lower", I mean than the norm, not than PHP

PHP
Initial cost: 0
Added development cost: 0
Normal running maintenance cost: -15% over .NET for hosting
Upgrade costs: 0
PITA Factor: Low, after acclimatization
User Training Costs: 0, it's a website
Documentation costs: Normal
Deployment costs: 0, beyond hosting which is covered in maintenance
Critical Failure costs: Normal

Really I'd say they are pretty even in terms of TCO (unless I'm missing some metrics, which is entirely possible).

Now that I've done that, I might as well do Enterprise:

.NET
Initial cost (non hardware): 25K
Added development cost:
Developer: +30% over PHP
IDE & Tools: Non-existant for PHP, so astronomically higher by comparison, roughly 1K/seat including backups, extra utilities, etc
Normal running maintenance cost: Very low, as uses tools familiar to MIS
Upgrade costs: 0, Framework is free
PITA Factor: Low, after acclimatization
User Training Costs: Low, utilizes existing technologies has high familiarity rating for users
Documentation costs: Very low, VS.NET's integrated documentation tools are second to none
Deployment costs: Low, provided you can get MIS to agree to deploying .NET
Critical Failure costs: Very low, due to integrated MS backup technologies

PHP
Initial cost (non hardware): 20K
Added development cost:
Developer: -30% over PHP
IDE & Tools: Non-existant for PHP, so astronomically higher by comparison, roughly 1K/seat including backups, extra utilities, etc
Normal running maintenance cost: Low, as most required tools are open source
Upgrade costs: Assuming no $ components need upgraded, 0
PITA Factor: Low, if users and MIS are used to xNix
User Training Costs: Low, if users and MIS are used to xNix
Documentation costs: Normal
Deployment costs: Low
Critical Failure costs: Normal

Dunno, feel like I'm over simplifying and missing some metrics, but really the biggest cost difference is related to orgnazational structure, and the ability to do RAD and Application Development period.

[neil100]

Originally posted by firepages


? whats that got to do with what I said ?

neil, yes there is big money in java, and in ASP (.NET to follow perhaps) .... adding tremendously no doubt to the TCO of a project, thanks for pointing that one out

Fine you need it explained, you introduced the money an individual can earn from a language into the thread with the "it's called a profit margin commnent". So I simply pointed out that in the real world a distinct advantage for anyone versed in .NET as opposed to PHP is that:

1 - there will be more opportunities for them.
2 - they will have greater earning power.

Which are distinct benefits for .net, is that any clearer?

[voostind]

I think we've seen more than enough comparisons of features of .NET, JSP and PHP. The problem with all those features is that they are different for each of us. So comparing becomes a more or less useless argument (although very educational!).

I'd like to add a new topic to this interesting subject: LICENSING.

If you haven't read Microsoft's licenses. Please do so now. Then tell me why on EARTH you are willing to work with companies that force those kind of licenses up your ***. Because I don't get it.

It's like Ferrari saying: "Here son, have one of our cars. It's free! Of course, you will have to buy all our future models because we won't be repairing the old ones if they break down. (Did we mention we offer a new model each year? No matter.) Oh, and we will be accessing your private information - like your bank account. Of course that has nothing to do with our company. But hey, you wanted a free car!"

Vincent

[Jeremy W.]

Do you have a link to the .NET EULA so I can comment in an educated manner?

[voostind]

Do you have a link to the .NET EULA so I can comment in an educated manner?

I thought you were using .NET already?

Are you really that stupid that you clicked 'OK' when installing .NET without reading the license?

That kind of behavior can get you killed.

And bye the way. It's not just .NET. It's any Microsoft software package.

Vincent

[Jeremy W.]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Installation of software is an MIS issue, thanks. They give the nod, I do the work.