php vs asp

COM == "Component Object Model"

There's also DCOM (D for distrubuted). It's the same idea though. It sort objectifying ASP. Build your COM objects, which are basically DLLs written in whatever language you want (traditionally, this was C++ or VBA), then ASP had a build in structure to make use the those objects. You had to build an API into your objects, of course, but more-or-less it's STDIN STDOUT sort of stuff.

The problem is, most of the free COM objects you download tend to have memory leaks and will crash IIS over time, since IIS has a really hard time with garbage collection, unless there are 0 active sessions... find for a smaller site, but on my organization's site, I doubt there's been a zero session point for a month... plenty of time for IIS to crash under even a small memory leak (the DLLHOST process for our site always runs at nearly 200MB of memory anyway... but then our site is extremely well traffiked).

ASP.NET has vastly improved everything about ASP across the board. There are new issues, like it's considerably more complicated, but in terms of performance, the .NET system blows standard ASP away. At this point, it's unlikely that non-MS-style developers have done any serious work with .NET yet, although there will always be exceptions.

I always feel strange... guilty? Dirty? Hypocritical? when I find myself in the position of defending MS technology... heh. I just think it gets a bad rap sometimes, although some of that is well deserved. There are definitely WORSE things you could do than implement a fully MS network.

.c

-excellent idea

and nice explanation on COM.

Actually if it's available to you the SQL Server 2000 is a bettter choice than MSSQL. I use both and SQL 2000 is significantly easier to manage in my opinion. (I suppose this assumes you use a Windows server also) The Advantage to MSSQL is if you have Office 2000 Pro or some such flavor, it comes with it at no extra charge, although it is not installed by default.

Having worked exstensively in PHP and ASP I found that the strong dimensioning requirements for arrays in ASP tends to disallow alot of creativity in your coding. The Microsfot Solution has some fantastic features (ADO being one of them) but I still tend to lean the way of PHP.

Not because it is Free but because it allows me to code freely. I don't take very nicely to hard and fast rules and I like to stretch the boundries and see how far I can take a piece of code before it falls over.

I just get the feeling that Microsoft didn't take ASP as far as they could have but it seems they have done a realy number with C#. I am looking forward to getting my teeth into that.

Anyways the point I am trying to make is this - Neither language has significant performance difference on a correctly configured server, they both have favourite OS's and favourite DBMS's.

To say one is better is unfair, just find the one that works for you.

PS - I think it was on PHP.net that I read " ...theoretically with PHP you should be able to write a web server... "

I was taking MSSQL as either a typo or a mis-abbreviation for mySQL or MS SQL Server... but... are you refering to MSDE 2000?

Anyway, MSDE is superior to Access, but that's about it. If you can choose, choose MSDE if you don't have SQL Server. SQL Server and Oracle are pretty much the top of the line systems, but then, that's why they are several thousands of dollars.

Many people will argue that mySQL is on par with those system, but that's really just silly. Where you would be right in that assersion is in the fact that for probably 85% of database integration work, mySQL is more or less as good since it, like all descent relational databases, follow some core SQL standards. Where the really significant database servers, like SQL Server and Oracle, really shine are in the other extended SQL functions, like nested SQL statements, shorthands, etc. Nested SQL is really pretty cool...

SELECT * FROM table WHERE something=(SELECT * FROM anothertable WHERE something=something)

It's hard to wrap your head around that if you've never done it... It took me a while to figure it out as well. My org's donor database runs on Oracle, and for some reports, I've written 25, 30 line (sometimes longer) SQL queries that span 20 different tables...

So... the point is, mySQL is in the upper middle tier of database systems. It's really good, but there are better and it's by far not the worst you can do. However, as I'm mentioned in other posts, always pick your technology based on your requirements. Sometimes an Access database will actually do it for you... or even a flat CSV file.

.c

I would have to agree with you on that one, unfortunately mySQL is not as strong as MS SQL. Although it does support alot of features that no one has really seen (besides the people that go digging).

I find it is pretty strong but when it comes to rapid deployment Microsoft is superior