101–110 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheaper definitely, superior not.
Why are the two separate? Of course you include cost when evaluating with option is superior.
PHP was only free beer with a clunky language and 3rd class DB support.
MySQL couldn't hold a candle to real RDMS back then, versus what was available with ODBC connectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Classic ASP was terrible; if you're thinking ASP.NET then that did not exist at the time.
Using OCX from ASP, written in Delphi, VB and C++ Builder, alongside VB Script, was definitely better than PHP 3.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using OCX from ASP, written in Delphi, VB and C++ Builder, alongside VB Script, was definitely better than PHP 3.
Shared hosts didn't let you use anything but VBScript and JScript. Using COM components was a non-starter for the majority of users -- which is entirely the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shared hosts didn't let you use anything but VBScript and JScript. Using COM components was a non-starter for the majority of users -- which is entirely the point.
The ones that offered IIS instead of ASP via Apache surely did, depending on the price plan.
I started doing ASP development before my web host suggested it was cheaper and easier to do PHP. They had both Linux and Windows shared hosting at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ones that offered IIS instead of ASP via Apache surely did, depending on the price plan.
There is no ASP via Apache. ASP was only ever hosted on IIS and given the huge security implications of running custom binaries on IIS in a shared environment, it almost wasn't ever done. I started doing ASP development before my web host suggested it was cheaper and easier to do PHP. They had both Linux and Windows shared hosting at the time.
http://www.apache-asp.org/faq.html
I was only wrong regarding the language, it made use of Perl instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no ASP via Apache. ASP was only ever hosted on IIS and given the huge security implications of running custom binaries on IIS in a shared environment, it almost wasn't ever done. I started doing ASP development before my web host suggested it was cheaper and easier to do PHP. They had both Linux and Windows shared hosting at the time.
Sure there was one http://www.apache-asp.org/faq.html I was only wrong regarding the language, it made use of Perl instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there was one http://www.apache-asp.org/faq.html I was only wrong regarding the language, it made use of Perl instead.
One esoteric library that was not mainstream. It's completely unrelated (and utterly incompatible) to Microsoft's ASP. I'm not even sure why you'd bother to bring it up -- what point does this make?
Majority of developers write crappy code even on a decent environment. But there is so much old and bad PHP code out there as a result of many years of teaching how to right bad PHP code that nothing can stop these bad criticisms forever.
I don't write PHP at this moment but I know PHP7 made major improvements. PHP is still a very good choice for rapid web development and fits for many startups, small, and medium size business, and there are many successful examples to back it up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One esoteric library that was not mainstream. It's completely unrelated (and utterly incompatible) to Microsoft's ASP. I'm not even sure why you'd bother to bring it up -- what point does this make?
That PHP only got where it is today because of cheap hosting, down to the level of free beer, nothing more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are the two separate? Of course you include cost when evaluating with option is superior.
Because to be superior, the tooling and libraries also have to be superior. PHP was only free beer with a clunky language and 3rd class DB support. MySQL couldn't hold a candle to real RDMS back then, versus what was available with ODBC connectors.
Perhaps that is your definition, but the dictionary disagrees.