Google uses PHP!

**Zoef** · Nov 17, 2002, 09:43

Once again PHP wins because more 14 year olds use it than smoke cigarettes.

Just thought I'd mention PHP doesn't cause cancer.

.NET however...

**samsm** · Nov 17, 2002, 10:11

I think Jeremy W.'s point was that Google is not a 14 year old.

Personally, I place a great deal of regard in Google's choices regarding technology. If they have decided the php is a viable solution for certain portions of their site I'm sure they have done the research needed to determine that.

Google probably doesn't want to use .net for the same reasons as 14 year olds ... too expensive. Google could need to get licences for their 10,000+ processors ... probably not be viable for their special blend of enterprise level developement.

With PHP they can immedately scale a script across servers in their network without additional licencing or hardware costs.

**samsm** · Nov 17, 2002, 10:16

Originally posted by M. Johansson

So [Jeremy] should just site there and shut up while someone makes a totally unfounded remark about the quality of PHP?

I can't find the remark you are refering to that precedes Jeremy's comment. Could you please point it out for me?

**M. Johansson** · Nov 17, 2002, 10:26

Originally posted by samsm
I can't find the remark you are refering to that precedes Jeremy's comment. Could you please point it out for me?

edit - Just above Jeremys post, by templates911.

**firepages** · Nov 17, 2002, 11:05

Originally posted by M. Johansson

edit - Just above Jeremys post, by templates911.

lol which is 3 posts below Jeremys first post/stir in this thread, I am in Australia where everything is upside down but I generally take that into account.

Anyway we all know that its impossible for PHP to be used by the worlds best search engine or the worlds biggest website or in one of the worlds top banks because as we know it does not have full OOP support and runs on a very insecure platform which does not drive the majority of the worlds webservers nor 9-11 million domains run no doubt en masse by spotty cigarette smoking geeks who have no friends nor realise what a true RDBMS is because PHP only works with MySQL and you can't seperate presentation/logic with php & because we told you so.

..you have to say it fast for full effect!

**samsm** · Nov 17, 2002, 11:07

Originally posted by M. Johansson

edit - Just above Jeremys post, by templates911.

First I'd like to apologize, I was being a little snide. However, I think Phil.Roberts has a point. Take a look at Jeremey's first post, that comes out of nowhere. Do people sabotage .net threads that way? Maybe they do, but they shouldn't!

Plus this second post is unnecessarily condescending:

You go ahead and have your fun in the PHP forum then, patting each other on the backs for small advances and ignoring the leaps and bounds of other programming languages.

**Hartmann** · Nov 17, 2002, 11:24

Originally posted by samsm
I think Jeremy W.'s point was that Google is not a 14 year old.

Personally, I place a great deal of regard in Google's choices regarding technology. If they have decided the php is a viable solution for certain portions of their site I'm sure they have done the research needed to determine that.

Google probably doesn't want to use .net for the same reasons as 14 year olds ... too expensive. Google could need to get licences for their 10,000+ processors ... probably not be viable for their special blend of enterprise level developement. With PHP they can immedately scale a script across servers in their network without additional licencing or hardware costs.

I am not trying to say Google should use .NET but why would they have to buy licenses for their 10,000 processors? All they would need is the .NET framework installed (free). They would only need licenses for the developers. Right? I just don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

**samsm** · Nov 17, 2002, 12:02

Originally posted by Hartmann

I am not trying to say Google should use .NET but why would they have to buy licenses for their 10,000 processors? All they would need is the .NET framework installed (free). They would only need licenses for the developers. Right? I just don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

I'll admit that I am largely ignorant as to .net... I assumed that current implementations required licenses for the Microsoft .net enterprise server. You seem to know more about it than me so I will defer to your judgment. Please correct me.

**Jeremy W.** · Nov 17, 2002, 12:06

Originally posted by Zoef
I'm sure .NET has it's uses, and probably even has some advantages over PHP, and the other way around.

But for small sites with some simple CMS, which is the niche I'm looking for, I'm under the impression it's rather cumbersome and expensive. That's why I decided on PHP as my first server side weblanguage. It seemed to meet my requirements better.

Actually, I think PHP is great for small sites and so on. My point was that the adoption of PHP has as much to do with it being "the best language ever" as the fact that Geo's are some of the most popular cars in the world has to do with them being the best car in the world.

PHP is great. I use it weekly. In fact, I'm about to start a several thousand dollar client site with it. I have nothing against PHP. People seem to think that just becuase I won't stand up for untruths that I'm against the language. I don't stand up for untruths from the .NET gruop here, the Photoshop group or the PC groups either. I might be "snide" (not sure), but I believe I am snide across the board, if that's what I am.

Perhaps it is, but since no objective analysis has ever been done, and since anything which might have been done would have been discredited by the PHP community if it didn't win (kinda like the Java vs .NET studies done by The Middleware Company), I don't see what point any such analysis would have.

My whole thing with stepping in was that with every tiny step, the PHP community goes dancing and prancing around about how they rule the world already and everything else will soon die.

I'd invite some of the PHP guys here to try and trash a similar .NET discussion. No, really... Oh, wait, the .NET discussions don't go that way. They say "here's what happened, wonderful" and die off because nobody cares. So what if MS is moving Hotmail, one of the largest sites on the planet? So what if I'm halfway through a multi-million dollar project in which the choice of .NET has SAVED us nearly 100,000$ (and had even before we lay down one line of code)? It really doesn't matter much.

I mean, heck, in it's first year .NET has 4 forums which are better than any ASP forum on the net. It's beat PHP, Java and all takers on speed of pages, development speed and even, yes, cost. It's being used RIGHT NOW by more corporations than PHP, and more jobs are available RIGHT NOW than there have been for PHP in it's history.

This stuff isn't celebrated by the .NET community becuase it doesn't matter. We work with the language and it's not like we feel vindicated or anything because most of us use the language for our jobs already.

Should Google use PHP? I dunno, which part of the site are they using it for? Is it just a test? I think it's great if Google picks PHP, and is no skin off my nose. It's a fast, efficient language, but it's hardly able to (to quote) "immedately scale a script across servers in their network", as the app would need to be written to scale in any scripting language.

So, what exactly have I done wrong? Say PHP isn't the best thing in the world? Say that the fact that it's used on nearly a billion sites is great, but it doesn't mean it's the best in the world? Say that the "security" of PHP is kind of a joke considering there are more viruses written monthly for RedHat than for all of Windows? Heck, all I've probably done is make the PHP community here even more self righteous because they see me as a spoil sport.

A spoil sport who uses PHP for one in five projects.

**Hartmann** · Nov 17, 2002, 12:51

samsm,

I think that PHP is great for Google. Here is why...
If they have found PHP as a solution to a problem that they were having and this solution works, then why go out and try to use something different. Obviously they haven't had any major problems with PHP or they would have switched to something else. My previous post was not meant to disprove you or anything, because I don't think any company should switch languages or technologies just because it is available.

**seanf** · Nov 17, 2002, 13:23

Jeremy - this thread was started to show that PHP is becoming more and more commonplace and is being picked up by some of the highest visited sites on the Net. I have never called PHP the best programming language, but I consider it to be one of the best tools for the job when it comes to web programming. You have talked about .NET in the corporate world and this is where it belongs IMO. You keep talking about how .NET has saved you money at work and I'm pleased, but that is hardly conclusive evidence that implementing .NET costs less than implementing PHP - especially as you were already a Microsoft based company!

People who talk about PHP being "better overall" are people who have found PHP to be 'perfect' for whatever they needed to do when it comes to web programming. So .NET is supposed to be more advanced, it's designed for a corporate environment and other things, does that mean we should all drop PHP now? Of course it doesn't! We are a group of people who enjoy using PHP and want to see the language grow and become more recognised

I'd like to here your (and Mr Johansson's) opinions on some of these:

1) .NET ties you to a platform and to a webserver

2) .NET is not cross-platform

3) .NET is not for beginners (forced OOP use etc.)

Sean

**HarryF** · Nov 17, 2002, 13:25

And .NET doesn't do flash!!!

...but PHP does to awesome effect: http://www.pinkgoblin.com/flash/index.php - anyone fancy a game?

**M. Johansson** · Nov 17, 2002, 15:51

Originally posted by seanf
I'd like to here your (and Mr Johansson's) opinions on some of these:

1) .NET ties you to a platform and to a webserver

2) .NET is not cross-platform

3) .NET is not for beginners (forced OOP use etc.)

Sean

Those are definetly drawbacks of the .NET platform, and I recognize them as such. But those drawbacks only apply in certain cases - i.e. where you are stuck with a Unix platform.

And if Ximian doesn't screw up the Mono Project, drawback 1 and 2 should be disappearing in the near future.

**Jeremy W.** · Nov 17, 2002, 16:01

Sean, we WEREN'T an MS company. I've told Harry this at least a dozen times and yet he keeps repeating it in other discussions (so it becomes true to the PHP community here).

We were on the MS OS and that was it. Our IDE was Delphi. Our DB was Interbase. Our firewall was nonexistant. The only other thing that was MS was Exchange Server.

In non MS environments the savings are actually GREATER than in MS environments since hardware requirements are lower, licensing fees are lower and development times are lower since you aren't catering for existing systems, or when you are you can develop DTS services for it.

**HarryF** · Nov 17, 2002, 16:08

Mattias,

I've been comparing PHP's function and extension library with .NET library - there's some big holes in .NET it turns out namely;

No flash classes
No pdf classes
Image manilupate classes are not as powerful and mature as PHP's
No ftp classes

Those are big holes my friend

Otherwise, there's a whole host of more minor things which PHP has an .NET doesn't, such as SNMP, the IRC Gateway, Notes, Zip, BZip etc. etc.

There's one other big one which is now available in PHP - msession (http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.msession.php) - allows you to run PHP sessions over multiple servers - great for N-Tier and load balancing environments. With .NET you're dependent on SOAP to get this right, and SOAP hasn't fully evolved that far (i.e. you're writing your own custom solution).

The only thing .NET actually has which PHP doesn't is ASP.NET, which is in fact a templating solution (as discussed in another thread) which will lead you to putting together websites like this - a mess in other words - something complete un-enterprise level.

The web controls generate something which look good for IE only (not good for AOL users for example) - try browsing MSDE with Opera and you'll get an idea how bad it is.

Scratch what I said in the past that .NET's class library is worth having - it isn't.

PHP's library turns out be better suited for web development. Have a nice evening

PS:

And if Ximian doesn't screw up the Mono Project, drawback 1 and 2 should be disappearing in the near future.

Except MS is determined that Mono will fail...

**neil100** · Nov 17, 2002, 16:09

Originally posted by seanf

3) .NET is not for beginners (forced OOP use etc.)

If for example someone just wants to a learn a language so they can add functionality to their website then the point that .NET is not for beginners is a very good one, however if someone wants to learn a language because they want to do it as a living then they would be better of beginning with .NET rather than PHP which lets you get into bad habits and lets you do quite alot without having very much understanding of programming concepts, which in the long run will be a hinderence.

**HarryF** · Nov 17, 2002, 16:13

however if someone wants to learn a language because they want to do it as a living then they would be better of beginning with .NET rather than PHP which lets you get into bad habits and lets you do quite alot without having very much understanding of programming concepts, which in the long run will be a hinderence.

A bad programmer is a bad programmer. Being forced into strong typing and OO won't prevent you from being a bad programmer.

Most PHP developers who stick with it learn more about programming by learning from experience. They ask "Why does it take me six month to build a site with spagetti code" and research what PHP can offer OO wise to save themselves time.

**neil100** · Nov 17, 2002, 17:29

Originally posted by HarryF

A bad programmer is a bad programmer. Being forced into strong typing and OO won't prevent you from being a bad programmer.

Most PHP developers who stick with it learn more about programming by learning from experience. They ask "Why does it take me six month to build a site with spagetti code" and research what PHP can offer OO wise to save themselves time.

Whilst a bad programmer may be a bad programmer regardless of the language, being forced into strong typing and OO gets you into good habits and actually forces you to learn at least some theory before diving in.

Whilst learning from experience is something everyone does, learning from experience after you have studied some theory and actually get to know the reasons for why something works in a certain way is the best way to learn, that is why it's taught in this way at university.

**Jeremy W.** · Nov 17, 2002, 19:32

Harry,

Mate, I'm giving up on you. Do you honestly believe all .NET is is a templating system? What's the point, then. You'll keep throwing in extensions for PHP while not allowing it with .NET. You'll keep saying how MS is demeaning projects (when it's not). You'll keep saying how we are forced into things that we aren't forced into.

I'd love to figure out how a templating system beat Java for performance, price, speed of development and speed of deployment.

I'm unsubbing from all these threads as it's going nowhere with Harry's templating discussion. He's decided it's fact and that's that I suppose.

J

**HarryF** · Nov 17, 2002, 19:42

Sigh. And Jeremy you keep misquoting me ad hoc.

all .NET is is a templating system

I said all ASP.NET is is a templating system.

I'd love to figure out how a templating system beat Java for performance, price, speed of development and speed of deployment.

Speed wise that's easy. Both PHP and .NET know that if you want performance, you implement core functions in the framework itself. All comparison have been made on Windows as well and the .NET framework used all sorts of nice shortcuts, like stored procedures.

Speed of development is perhaps a result of Java being too strict. But it's a subjective analysis.

Price and speed of deployment - that may be because Sun/IBM want you to buy their App servers. Course if they'd used JBoss (http://www.jboss.org/) they'd have a free server which is relatively nice to use.

**Eric.Coleman** · Nov 17, 2002, 20:22

Why fight

It pisses me off to see both .NET and PHP community's fight like this. Babies..

Sure, I learned PHP first, but that's not what matters. Each language has it's own place.

Sure, PHP is easier for begginers, .NET isn't. Personally, I would like to see PHP strong typed, and have better OO support. There is no use fighting over it, it's not going to change.

Each language has it's place. Leave it there. The more you fight, the more you hurt your language. Why don't I support Open Source? Becuase of the @$$holes there are involved. That claim just becuase a solution is OS, it's MUCH BETTER than one that costs say $100. B.S.

-Eric

**Zoef** · Nov 17, 2002, 22:09

Can't compare apples with banana's but they are both delicious.

Wouldn't that sorta sum it up?

Greetings

Rik the fruitbasket

**Eric.Coleman** · Nov 17, 2002, 22:22

Originally posted by Zoef
Can't compare apples with banana's but they are both delicious.

Wouldn't that sorta sum it up?

Greetings

Rik the fruitbasket

Exactly..

**M. Johansson** · Nov 18, 2002, 01:49

Originally posted by HarryF
No flash classes
No pdf classes
Image manilupate classes are not as powerful and mature as PHP's

Eeeeh - those are not even part of the PHP library! They are external extensions which need to be installed on the server!!!!!

There's one other big one which is now available in PHP - msession (http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.msession.php) - allows you to run PHP sessions over multiple servers - great for N-Tier and load balancing environments. With .NET you're dependent on SOAP to get this right, and SOAP hasn't fully evolved that far (i.e. you're writing your own custom solution).

You are not dependent on SOAP - .NET can store session data in an SQL server, and that by simply changing one variable in the server settings.

The web controls generate something which look good for IE only (not good for AOL users for example) - try browsing MSDE with Opera and you'll get an idea how bad it is.

And what a great example MSDN is, which is a NON- .NET site targeted at MICROSOFT DEVELOPERS (it's quite likely that they have IE installed, you know). If something built with .NET breaks in any other browser, it's because of really bad coding from the developer, not the fault of .NET.

The only thing .NET actually has which PHP doesn't is ASP.NET, which is in fact a templating solution (as discussed in another thread) which will lead you to putting together websites like this - a mess in other words - something complete un-enterprise level.

ASP.NET is a templating solution? I'm giving up now. I'm just talking to a wall. I'm gonna go eat apples and bananas.

**Zoef** · Nov 18, 2002, 01:55

And my banana is bigger then yours!!!!

And my daddy is a boxer!!!!

...Makes about as much sense as a lot of this thread...

The SitePoint Forums have moved.

User Tag List

Thread: Google uses PHP!

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions