Why PHP?

[Conficio]

Hi there,
I try to look at this not so much from the technical perspective, but from the business point of view. Probably your two best sources for the answer to your question are:

• Your client
• The original author or last maintainer of the site

I think you better find out what they have to say. Because it also might reveal some functionality you have overlooked so far. And this functionality is part of what the client expects from you. It is critical to your success.

Be careful, this is important to find out. If you find out it has no value what so ever, Go ahead and write it in pure HTML. Especially as you characterize your own HTML experience as not too intense. In your shoes, I would rather try to learn more about HTML, than embarking on a PHP challenge, if you don't have to. You could even find a subcontractor that helps you not to break the existing PHP (or does the PHP for you, if changes are needed), while you supply the design and keep your ability to reach for the main site contract.

Good luck with the project

K<o>

[ronniethedodger]

CosmicPerl - Http is not a binary transfer protocol. It can be used to trigger other modules such as ftp to handle binary transfers.

As for a speed test in app programming, not going to go there. For one, I am not a proficient enough programmer. Two, it would be like asking two people ... one in Florida and one in Washington to get into two different vehicles and and drive on two different roads to go to two different stores to buy a box of cereal and then drive back again, then see who can do it in the quickest amount of time.

Two years ago, one could say that perl would outpower php ... but that was two years ago. One reason is that perl loaded itself into memory and stayed there, while php did not. It was not surprising to see that php actually ran faster on a Windows machine, as opposed to a Linux box in those benchmark tests.

Now we have Zend optimizer which greatly enhances the speed of php and optimizes the code. Perl has basicly taken a static path over the last couple of years in contrast.

I will leave you with a study that was conducted by Yahoo, and why they broke away from a C/C++ page language and went to PHP for their backend over any other scripting language out there ... including perl/java/asp.

http://public.yahoo.com/~radwin/talk...phpcon2002.htm

[hbonline]

PHP IS GREAT!!

it is a way of creating dynamic webpages, and is much easier than CGI scripting. You can pretty much cut and paste the code just like you can with javascript and it will work.

pretty much anything you can do with CGI scripting you can do with PHP.

plus it is OPEN SOURCE "FREE" in other words :)

check out http://www.php.net

later

Nick

[cosmicperl]

lutenegger - PHP was renamed to PHP Hypertext Preprocessor. It was originally Personal Home Pages. The creator wanted to add Perl capabilities to standard HTML, and make it so easy any idiot could do it. As they migrated more features from Perl and PHP became more complex they found the name Personal Home Pages didn't fit anymore.

igor1 :- That's why you get so many PHP programmers, because it's a very easy language to learn designer for HTML programmers to be able to pick it up. Not saying that all PHP programmers aren't that good, but it explains why you can easily get a PHP programmer taking on a project for you, then giving up or dissappearing off the face of the earth. If you give them a difficult task, requiring some advanced code then a lot of the PHP programmers can't hack it.

Ronniethedodger:-
Are we having a langurage barrier? It seems that I say one thing and you change it to something else. Here is what I said:-
"...yes HTTP stands for 'Hyper Text Transfer Protocol' but no not everything transfered by HTTP is HTML. HTTP is now used for many data transfers, including binary files."
I did not say HTTP is a binary transfer protocol. How you got this I'm not sure. HTTP can be used to transfer any data, like many protocols. Yes it was designed for HTML, but it is not limited to that, and is used for many things. No HTTP as a protocol does not invoke FTP. I think your confusing transfer protocols with your browsers features. To give you an example. When you us a browser form to upload a file you can upload image files which are BINARY, not ASCII. These browser forms use the HTTP tranfer protocol to upload the files.

If you want to compaire PHP to Perl with the Zend Optimiser, then how about I ake you an application with MOD_PERL? Now then PHP really wouldn't have a chance in hell as MOD PERL is a part of the apache web server running things live without the need to compile. Actually MOD_PERL probably runs faster than serving a web page because it comes from memory.

If we tested both the scripts on the same server then there test would be fair, wouldn't it? Then we'd be driving in different cars, but along the same road, to the same store.

As for Yahoo, they change their mind a lot. There is a very good chance they will not stay with PHP when Perl 6 comes out. The case also seems a bit biased. There case for perl states:-
Pros
– FreeBSD support and performance is great
– huge CPAN library
– we already use it for offline processing
Cons
– There’s More Than One Way To Do It
– poor sandboxing, easy to screw up server
– wasn’t designed as web scripting language

How can they list 'There’s More Than One Way To Do It' as a con? It's one of the things that makes Perl so great!!! :P

Also if you look at the results of the performance tests Perl actually wins in every test hands down.

[ronniethedodger]

Whatever cosmicperl. I gave up on pissing contests 10 years ago. You win.

[cosmicperl]

ronniethedodger:-
It's not my intent or in my interest at all to have a 'pi ssing' contest. I thought this was a community for us to try and find the facts? I'm just trying to help. :)

[gnskbc11]

Originally Posted by chrisjaeger

What's the general consensus on .php pages getting indexed in search engines. I see them, but still I see .html files beating them, in most cases.

Is .php more "SE friendly" than, say CFM, or ASP. It sure seems so, just looking at SERPS.

At some level most developers who use PHP, ASP whatever are sophisticated enough to control their own server environment.

They set MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions) types to represent the file types that can be opened with a web browser and change extensions of server-parsed files.

This helps avoid giving a potential hacker even the slightest clue as to what scripting language is used.

[computergenius]

Originally Posted by compusolver

'computergenius' wrote:

It is no mistake. The code in server-side pages cannot be downloaded with a browser.

It *is* a mistake (:->

If the site is *really* HTML, but the files are called index.php, then the HTML can be downloaded.

<BODY>Hello World</BODY>
The source for that can be downloaded, whether or not the file is called index.php or index.html

<BODY><? echo 'Hello World';?></BODY>
The source for that cannot be downloaded, just the HTML created by it. End users will never see the word "echo", if the page is a php page.

However, I have seen people rename the HTML pages as .php, simply to protect the code... and it doesn't.

[dsr771]

I use php and have used a lot of asp as well. I have an older asp site is number 1 in google for it's keyword.

My understanding about SE and dynamic pages is that some spiders may not like pages that have the ?parameters. Google and yahoo seem to do fine with these those. I have also heard some suggest that they may only look at the first couple of parameters after the ?.

Also, the biggest solution sugested to make sure your pages get indexed is to create a site map that links to each page.

Hope this helps someone.

[venividi]

There may be at least two reasons for using php: a great number of images or having the site translated into a number of languages.
Images: I hand code all my sites, but the one I just completed has hundred of images. It's not an e-commerce site but a sort of showroom of design kitchenware, tableware, pocket knives, coffee machines and the like and it would have taken ages to do without php. However, once the site was all right with everything falling into place, and the client satisfied, it took me only a few minutes to convert the pages into html easily.
If you want to see it, here's the url: http://www.designware.ch
Foreign language sections: another site of mine ( http://www.debem.it ) has TWELVE languages. Again, the answer is php: once you've coded a page in PHP you have the php go and get the alternative text and your page is done in any language with very few adjustments. Since I encountered some difficulties in using MYSQL with Russian or Eastern European characters PHP offered me an excellent solution: instead of Mysql or other databases, I used plain text files.
Here again, once the pages are formed, I converted into plain html.

Valeria

[lessatam]

Hi-
I am late reading into this thread after so many replies, but I guess better late than never? But to "Seaflex's" original inquiry, as one person had also posted, ask your client if they know the reason why the site was originally done in PHP and/or who was the last person doing the update or maintenance of the website.

The PHP choice was very likely for client consideration in allowing them to handle their own content update if they so wished. For my own clients, ease of locating and updating content portions or areas of the website is important and secondly, if bandwidth is limited, php-includes (.inc files) is just one of many choices to help in decreasing accumulation of bandwidth if updates are frequent.

If you can re-structure the PHP website into HTML with similar ease of update, no matter the amount of dynamics put into place, then do so. But you do need the original web site files that hopefully your client will have. I've had clients who do not know where these are at and ask me to simply "save" their website pages from the web browser and that puts me in a dilemna because doing it that way will not allow me to ascertain if original php code/includes are written in since the source code from a 'save as' page will look like HTML. You will need to see if there are PHP commands from databases, etc.

Good luck,
Lessa

Originally Posted by seaflex

Hello All,

My problem is this:

....I am a bit stuck - I dont want to get myself into something that I dont understand, and I dont want to change the site from PHP to HTML and then find out why it was PHP in the first place.

Can anyone shed some light on this issue - any help will be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Phil

[HardCoded]

cosmicperl intimated:

Now then PHP really wouldn't have a chance in hell as MOD PERL is a part of the apache web server running things live without the need to compile.

Uhmm...so is mod_php. Scripts still need to be compiled, unless you use Apache::Registry. Add-ons providing similar functionality exist for PHP...most of them free.

Actually MOD_PERL probably runs faster than serving a web page because it comes from memory

That's quite absurd, if by 'webpage' you meant 'static file'. Please show us a benchmark.

I don't understand fanaticism in general, and particularly not when it comes to programming languages. You use whatever gets the job done.

[ReviewGolf.com]

Converting a large PHP site into plain PHP is a suicide. Most likely the functionality currently handled by PHP you'd have to recreate in CGI. If you're comfortable with PERL, all the powers to you, if not -- learn PHP.

PHP is one of the greatest things that happen to WWW in the last decade.

[lutenegger]

Originally Posted by cosmicperl

lutenegger - PHP was renamed to PHP Hypertext Preprocessor. It was originally Personal Home Pages.

I was simply correcting what igor said "it stands for" please see link on to PHP manual.

http://us4.php.net/manual/en/faq.general.php

As to your criticizing of PHP. I can code in 6 different languages. I choose to code in PHP because it is easier and faster, and close to Perl (my first language). Just because something is easy doesn't make it bad.

[lutenegger]

Originally Posted by HardCoded

I don't understand fanaticism in general, and particularly not when it comes to programming languages. You use whatever gets the job done.

Amen

[JCMnetmedia]

I did a little experiment, but I haven't come to any conclusions as of yet.

I know that google will indeed spider php pages, but as someone previously mentioned, its the variables in the URL that makes google choke. This also causes problems with W3C validation, so thats probably the reason.

There is a separate argument about whether html is preffered over php. I am still on the fence about it. I installed a mod to my forums that did a rewrite of all the urls into html. I went from having 5 forum pages spidered to around 3,650 in about a month.

I dont know if its because google prefers htm, or it just likes the clean url.

Either way, it will spider php just fine.

[voodooboy]

Why PHP? I have seen a lot of people make very valid points to the question. And I agree with about 90% of them. But one thing I did not see, and please forgive me if I overlooked it, is the real reason most people turn to PHP.

PHP is very similar in format to ASP. So the theory that it is easier to learn is not necessarily true. The main reason PHP is used is because of it's overall versatility.

Let's do a little comparison:

PHP can function on MAC, Windows, and Apache based servers. ASP can not.

PHP can integrate with nearly all available database structures. ASP can not.

PHP is open source and many applications are available under GNU License already; and the code is available to edit. Most ASP programmers encrypt everything they do so you have to pay for edits or program an entire application yourself.

PHP is the way to go when programming dynamic sites because of the versatility, not the ease of learning or superiority of the language.

And as for lessatam,

Originally Posted by lessatam

if bandwidth is limited, php-includes (.inc files) is just one of many choices to help in decreasing accumulation of bandwidth if updates are frequent.

Includes considerably cut down on site maintenance, but do not necessarily reduce bandwidth. I would also suggest that you do not use (.inc) as a file extension. If someone gets hold of the page in a search, the browser reads the file as a .txt document and all of your PHP coding is exposed. If you integrate with a secure database using an .inc file, you are putting your (possibly secure) data at great risk.

Just my two cents.

[DarrenC]

How many PHP / MySQL sites have you seen down, compared to ASP?

Personally, that's the reason why I chose PHP over ASP... it's far more reliable.

[GiftsForYouBiz]

I believe there is quite a difference here between "programmers" and "scripters". I myself am a Scripter, and would not put myself into the same arena as a programmer. PHP can accommodate both, as can ASP. CGI and JSP are primarily for programmers. Again, my experience and from what I've seen in my little corner of the world. I've written in PHP, ASP, Autolisp (for AutoCAD), Javascript, VB Script, and even VBA - but I am certainly NOT a programmer. I'm a developer who does a lot of scripting. I got through half of the Java ... in 21 days book, and got the concept, but have yet to apply it anywhere.

I believe there is also quite a difference when it comes to discussing speed. My little site is served up using one PHP file. One application counted (if I remember correctly) over 1,600 pages from my root. Wow. That's a lot of typing :) But my MySQL database only houses about 4,000 records. That's relatively small. If you're going to compare speeds, my site serves up just as quick with HTML as with my PHP file (I know this because I generate a few static pages from said PHP page). But wait, that's the naked eye that's telling me this. No benchmarks. Now if my database held a million or a few million (or more) records, I could see doing a benchmark. Or if my PHP were actually doing some serious acrobatics as Programmers can make it do, then perhaps speed could be calculated. Until then, I'm sure someone can speed up my PHP page by a second or two.

[GiftsForYouBiz]

Oh, yeah, the original message ... ;)

If you've got the job, and you don't know what most of these things mean, especially the code that one of the pages is written in, it's a good chance you probably shouldn't do it. I agree with a previous post that a recommendation is better than a blunder.

But wait, don't pass it up that quick ... there's this thing called teamwork. Why don't you do the design on the project, and get someone familiar with PHP to do the PHP side of it? There's only a million of us out here (I can't right now though, sorry ;), and then there's http://www.guru.com/ (CREATIVEmoonlighter has changed its name to Guru.com). Then, at the same time you're being productive, you're also learning from what the PHP developer/programmer is doing, and still be the POC (point of contact) with your soon-to-be-biggest-client.

[kiumars]

My problem is this:
1) I have just taken on a redesign of a site for a big company……
2) Am a bit stuck - I don’t want to get myself into something that I don’t understand…..

You asked a little question and received tones of response. The right answer lies within the lines of your post starting with an additional suffix “Never” as a friendly advice:
“Never” get yourself into something that you do not understand if you just have taken on a redesign of a site for a big company.
The result will be: You end up losing your client, reputation, time and finally the stress of learning intensively, makes you to hate PHP.
Anything looks easy when you know. Otherwise, PHP means to get that job but “P”ay “H”er “P”rogram it for you .“P”lease “H”elp me “P”eople is not a solution but confusion.
Hire someone to do the job for you and take your time while easing-off learning PHP with fun. By the time the work done successfully, you will also be master in PHP. Then you know that PHP stands for Hypertext Preprocessor that was based on a set of PERL scripts.

[igor1]

There are so many techni