mirror of
https://github.com/sigmasternchen/php-doc-en
synced 2025-03-17 01:18:55 +00:00

git-svn-id: https://svn.php.net/repository/phpdoc/en/trunk@64852 c90b9560-bf6c-de11-be94-00142212c4b1
126 lines
4.8 KiB
XML
Executable file
126 lines
4.8 KiB
XML
Executable file
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
|
|
<!-- $Revision: 1.9 $ -->
|
|
<chapter id="faq.languages">
|
|
<title>PHP and other languages</title>
|
|
<titleabbrev>PHP and other languages</titleabbrev>
|
|
|
|
<para>
|
|
PHP is the best language for web programing,
|
|
but what about other languages?
|
|
</para>
|
|
|
|
<qandaset>
|
|
<qandaentry id="faq.languages.asp">
|
|
<question>
|
|
<para>PHP vs. ASP?</para>
|
|
</question>
|
|
<answer>
|
|
<para>
|
|
ASP is not really a language in itself, it's an acronym for Active
|
|
Server Pages, the actual language used to program ASP with is Visual
|
|
Basic Script or JScript. The biggest drawback of ASP is that
|
|
it's a proprietary system that is natively used only on Microsoft
|
|
Internet Information Server (IIS). This limits it's availability to
|
|
Win32 based servers. There are a couple of projects in the works
|
|
that allows ASP to run in other environments and webservers:
|
|
<ulink url="&faqurl.instantasp;">InstantASP</ulink>
|
|
from <ulink url="&faqurl.halcyon;">Halcyon</ulink> (commercial),
|
|
<ulink url="&faqurl.chilisoft.asp;">Chili!Soft ASP</ulink> from
|
|
<ulink url="&faqurl.chilisoft;">Chili!Soft</ulink>
|
|
(commercial) and <ulink url="&faqurl.openasp;">OpenASP from
|
|
ActiveScripting.org</ulink> (free). ASP is said to be a slower
|
|
and more cumbersome language than PHP, less stable as well. Some of
|
|
the pros of ASP is that since it primarily uses VBScript it's
|
|
relatively easy to pick up the language if you're already know
|
|
how to program in Visual Basic. ASP support is also enabled by
|
|
default in the IIS server making it easy to get up and running.
|
|
The components built in ASP are really limited, so if you
|
|
need to use "advanced" features like interacting with FTP servers,
|
|
you need to buy additional components.
|
|
</para>
|
|
</answer>
|
|
</qandaentry>
|
|
|
|
<qandaentry id="faq.languages.aspconverter">
|
|
<question>
|
|
<para>Is there an ASP to PHP converter?</para>
|
|
</question>
|
|
<answer>
|
|
<para>
|
|
Yes, <ulink url="&faqurl.asp2php;">asp2php</ulink> is
|
|
the one most often referred to.
|
|
</para>
|
|
</answer>
|
|
</qandaentry>
|
|
|
|
<qandaentry id="faq.languages.coldfusion">
|
|
<question>
|
|
<para>PHP vs. Cold Fusion?</para>
|
|
</question>
|
|
<answer>
|
|
<para>
|
|
PHP is commonly said to be faster and more efficient for complex
|
|
programming tasks and trying out new ideas. PHP is generally referred
|
|
to as more stable and less resource intensive as well. Cold Fusion
|
|
has better error handling, database abstraction and date parsing
|
|
although database abstraction is addressed in PHP 4. Another
|
|
thing that is listed as one of Cold Fusion's strengths is its excellent
|
|
search engine, but it has been mentioned that a search engine is not
|
|
something that should be included in a web scripting language. PHP
|
|
runs on almost every platform there is; Cold Fusion is only available
|
|
on Win32, Solaris, Linux and HP/UX. Cold Fusion has a good IDE
|
|
and is generally easier to get started with, whereas PHP initially
|
|
requires more programming knowledge. Cold Fusion is designed with
|
|
non-programmers in mind, while PHP is focused on programmers.
|
|
</para>
|
|
<para>
|
|
A great summary by Michael J Sheldon on this topic has
|
|
been posted to the PHP mailing list. A copy can be found
|
|
<ulink url="&faqurl.coldfusion.summary;">here</ulink>.
|
|
</para>
|
|
</answer>
|
|
</qandaentry>
|
|
|
|
<qandaentry id="faq.languages.perl">
|
|
<question>
|
|
<para>PHP vs. Perl?</para>
|
|
</question>
|
|
<answer>
|
|
<para>
|
|
The biggest advantage of PHP over Perl is that PHP was designed for
|
|
scripting for the web where Perl was designed to do a lot more and can
|
|
because of this get very complicated. The flexibility / complexity
|
|
of Perl makes it easier to write code that another author / coder
|
|
has a hard time reading. PHP has a less confusing and stricter format
|
|
without losing flexibility. PHP is easier to integrate into existing
|
|
HTML than Perl. PHP has pretty much all the 'good' functionality of
|
|
Perl: constructs, syntax and so on, without making it as complicated
|
|
as Perl can be. Perl is a very tried and true language, it's been
|
|
around since the late eighties, but PHP is maturing very quickly.
|
|
</para>
|
|
</answer>
|
|
</qandaentry>
|
|
|
|
</qandaset>
|
|
</chapter>
|
|
|
|
<!-- Keep this comment at the end of the file
|
|
Local variables:
|
|
mode: sgml
|
|
sgml-omittag:t
|
|
sgml-shorttag:t
|
|
sgml-minimize-attributes:nil
|
|
sgml-always-quote-attributes:t
|
|
sgml-indent-step:1
|
|
sgml-indent-data:t
|
|
indent-tabs-mode:nil
|
|
sgml-parent-document:nil
|
|
sgml-default-dtd-file:"../../manual.ced"
|
|
sgml-exposed-tags:nil
|
|
sgml-local-catalogs:nil
|
|
sgml-local-ecat-files:nil
|
|
End:
|
|
vim600: syn=xml fen fdm=syntax fdl=2 si
|
|
vim: et tw=78 syn=sgml
|
|
vi: ts=1 sw=1
|
|
-->
|