Viewing Thread:
"Perl vs PHP"

Discuss.

Perl offers immense power, and some really quite excellent modules. However, it's hard to use, a bit slow, and was never developed for the Internet.

PHP however was. It's also fast, very easy to learn and intergrates with Apache and HTML very well. It also boasts Internet-specific functions, such as striptags(). On the other hand, it doesn't quite have the same power as perl and it may be complex and difficult to build very powerful web apps.

It's about time we had a debate. I want at least one zealot for each side!

It's only because SR can't sell them, or even pay people to take them away, so they have to find a use for them in the office. Of course, they all run the Mac port of FreeBSD.

Bob wrote:
> Internally we run Mac's

Yeay!! Mac's Rock!! I've just got my hands on a brand spanking new G4 with OSX... PHP, Pearl, TCL, CFML stright out of the box!! as I said.. Mac's Rock!!

I'm afraid I have to agree. Office 2000 is actually quite good.

Sorry ended that too soon. I ment windows 2k for normal machines. I admit windows is the best for office work and 2k hardly ever crashes (my machine is always on and may die once a month if that). But for the web linux is faster, cheaper and more reliable.

All our web facing servers (apart from mail which is goin over soon) run on one copy of linux. Freeola is run on Unix FreeBSD. Internally we run Mac's for backoffice and PC's for normal machines.

On the subject of running servers:

I'm no genius, but I seem to have my Apache server, and Debian, working very efficiently. I managed to set them both up competantly with virtually no help that wasn't very easily obtainable.

Ah, you're looking for help in the wrong place.

I find the best way to get support for *nix is via IRC. For all my problems use:

server: irc.linux.com
channels: #debian #php #perl

In fact, virtually every subject you can think of has a channel. If you need apache help, join #apache. Simple.

However:

For gnome support you're best off with irc.gnome.org #gnome. That's the only exception.

What's more, it's completely, totally 100% free.

Tyla wrote:
> but as far as I am aware, IIS doesn't require a licence.

Yep. It comes as part of the package you buy. Exactly like bundling Apache & Unix together.

> we were interested to find that support for a
> *nix server is hard to find on the other end of a phone.
> MS provide awesome support, thats part of what you pay
> for, and it's continual support too with no
> hassles.

That was part of what I meant by the "coveryourass" policy, with MS, you know that someone, somewhere will be able to answer you or help you out. Another thing is training, companies can buy training in MS products from a lot of places, but I haven't seen many *nix training courses around.

> Even I can set up and maintain an MS server and it's
> not even my job!!

Me to, well, it was once my job in an "assistant" type capacity, so if the server guy was on holiday, iy was my job to look after the servers, I always felt confident with them.

Turbonutter wrote:
> Of course it needs lisencing. PWS doesn't, but IIS does.

I'm not going to get too into this debate as this isn't really my area, but as far as I am aware, IIS doesn't require a licence. We run 28 Web servers here. 27 are MS 1 is Unix. Now as far as I am aware, all 27 Dell servers came preset with IIS but I will check this with my Server guy later. The Unix one came with the usual Apache but we were interested to find that support for a *nix server is hard to find on the other end of a phone.

MS provide awesome support, thats part of what you pay for, and it's continual support too with no hassles.


FunkyGamer wrote:
> And I still maintain that MS servers are easier to use than *nix.

Even I can set up and maintain an MS server and it's not even my job!!

funkygamer wrote:
> As far as I am aware, IIS doesn't need licensing anyway, it comes bundled with
> the Server. A bit like bundling Apache with *nix.


Of course it needs lisencing. PWS doesn't, but IIS does.