I generally avoid these sorts of discussions because they're ultimately a waste of time. Everything's relative - it's rare that you can ever say "A is absolutely, 100%, better than B" about anything. Especially when it comes to operating systems and programming - the fact of the matter is that it usually comes down to personal preference and comfort level, since there are a lot of choices for almost every situation. It's good to have lots of tools in the toolkit, so you can choose the one that makes the job at hand easiest - but that doesn't mean that tool is inherently better than others in every situation.
With that said - CronoMan, someone really slipped you some bad information at some point. It sounds like you fancy yourself some kind of expert, but some of your claims are way off base, and I'd hate to see people take your words as gospel.
At 10/5/07 06:32 AM, CronoMan wrote:
PHP does not qualify for a professional arena. PHP is a toy, and will remain a toy ;)
Yeah, we built Newgrounds and serve over 500,000 visitors a day with... a toy. PHP is a mature language, not without its flaws (like any language), but with most features you'd expect from a modern programming language. Declaring offhandedly that it's a "toy" is like someone in 1995 claiming that the Internet is just a "fad". NG is far from the only site doing big things with PHP.
ASP.NET is alot more advanced and goes alot more in-depth than PHP does. PHP is simply a CGI scripting language, it is not "connected" with the webserver in the same way ASP.NET, and therefore can't fully utilize the functions of a real webserver.
This might seem true to a beginning programmer, since ASP.NET nudges you into using their framework, whereas PHP does make it easy to do CGI-style programming and doesn't usually ship as part of a framework (though there are many). But if you've spent enough time programming to understand what a framework is and why it's helpful, you could appreciate the power PHP gives you build whatever back-end structure you want, customized to your specific needs.
Again, I'm not claiming that PHP is the end-all be-all, but we have a nice MVC setup at NG, built from the ground up with PHP. I enjoy the flexibility it provides. Statements like "PHP is simply a CGI scripting language" are, frankly, ignorant.
Apache is a simple webserver, it's nothing fancy. IIS has features apache can only dream about.
And one thing I especially enjoy in IIS is multi-process, which Apache does not have.
Each application is run as a seperate process, which means that if one application suffers a slowdown, or a crash of some sort, the rest of the websites will continue to go on as if nothing's happened. as far as I know, Apache lacks this. Additionally, it has no real SSL-support, security credentials (other than fs), thread-pooling, ISAPI filters, custom errors at application level, bandwidth limiter, server certificate managing, virtual directories etc.etc.
You've never used Apache, have you? It has options to either run as multiprocess or multithreaded, and tons of add-on modules. And then (among other questionable claims) you state that Apache doesn't support virtual directories?? Wow. How do you think Apache-hosted sites work? Apache's supported them since time immemorial. Anyone who's used it for more than five seconds knows that.
IIS (6.0 ->) conquers Apache, and my guess is that IIS will gain more popularity in the future.
If you have in-depth experience with both IIS and Apache, I can't see how it's even possible to consider Apache as a serious web-server in a business environment :)
Yeah, why would anyone ever use Apache? Other than those silly, marginal sites like Yahoo, YouTube, Facebook, Wikipedia, CNN, Slashdot, Flickr, Digg, LiveJournal, etc, etc. (Incidentally, while IIS has gained ground, Apache is the most-used webserver and has been for over a decade - so statements like yours lose you a lot of credibility.)