|-----Original Message----- |From: Charles, Joshua Micah (UMKC-Student) [mailto:jmcqk6@umkc.edu] |Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 9:57 AM |To: Brian Densmore; kclug@kclug.org |Subject: RE: Test Hosting Recommendation | | |Well, with ASP and PHP, you can generate all the HTML manually, so you can control how closely to Can is the operative word here. How many actually do?

| | Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the cross browser experience pretty good for XHTML (Strict) | pages? Don't know, haven't tested it.

| | The biggest advantage ASP.NET has over classic ASP and PHP is the ideas of Code-Behind, where you | have a clean separation of your code and the presentation code. You have to do quite a bit to | approach this in PHP or ASP. Also, managed post backs / page states are quite nice.

The question we should be asking here is why is this necessary? I'm not an advanced PHP coder (something I hope to fix soon) so I really can't speak to how easy it would be to do.

| I'm working on a PHP project after spending most of my time recently on ASP.NET, and while I used | to think PHP was great, after working with C# and the .Net framework, PHP looks rather primitive.

Well I guess that depends on what you think a webscripting language should do.

| Not being able to overload functions, or having strongly typed variables, or any number of other | things has been a pain. Not to mention that the Debugger for the .Net framework is a lot better | than the debugger available for PHP (and cheaper, I think).

How do you figure the .Net debugger is cheaper than the PHP debugger? I don't use a PHP debugger, at least not yet. So I'm completely ignorant of costs. But if there is a cost difference, it is most likely only there so Microsoft can kill off all competition to .Net so they can start charging through the nose for the .Net debugger. Typical M$ attack pattern (ref: Sun Tzu's Art of War :: Microsoft Press). Overloading functions is taken from c/c++. Something that could be done most likely with java code.

| When it comes to the speed differences on your machine between Firefox and explorer - that is | something I've never understood. This is not related to the server at all, right? It's a | rendering engine issue, right? The server serves up the pages at the same speed no matter what, | right? Like I said, I'm not sure, and I've always wondered about this issue. Microsoft would like you to believe this. No it doesn't have anything to do with the server. It has to do with code coming from the server based on browser information reported from the client. In other words, the server creates *different* pages based on the browser. The IE browsers get extra code/data so that some functions run locally on the client machine. Whereas, all other browsers have to retrieve that information from the server, in a separate request. Hence slower performance.