Re: PHP on .NET DLR

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 03:18:30PM -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> K T Ligesh wrote:
> 
> Productivity doesn't matter if a person is being productive on a project
> that is not as much interest as another project which they also could do
> well on.

 See that's what I am trying to figure out. Why is PHP on .NET considered unpopular, while Ruby gets such a lot of press?

> which to pick?   For many people, Ruby is more "fun" and you can't discount
> that in even MS; they have managers but a lot of them are coders too.  The
> MVC model of Rails is *very* productive.  
> 
> That said, what about this effort that focused on PHP first?   
> 
> http://mvolo.com/blogs/serverside/archive/2007/05/29/The-latest-on-the-FastC
> GI-project-and-PHP-support-on-IIS.aspx  
> http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/10/31/PHP-and-the-FastCGI-Module
> -for-IIS-7.0.aspx
> 
> You ignore that in your accusations against Microsoft.
> 

 NO. That's a separate development, and I have been following it very closely. In fact, the news of the Zend-MS alliance came in November first week, while the PHalanger Devs were picked up in October. So maybe Andi knows something about why the PHalanger devs were moved to Ruby?


 
> >  First of all, Windows is not my native platform. I tried 
> > with Mono, but last I checked they had some problems, which I 
> > couldn't work around. And even then the entire windows 
> > platform is alien to me, and it will take some time before I 
> > can get a hang of the philosophy.
> 
> Then it amazes me that you currently think SilverLight is revolutionary when
> people who have been on Windows for years like me are non-plussed.

 Silverlight is a nice addition to .NET. Alone neither of them has any meaning. But silverlight finally brings web to MSs domain of expertise--the desktop. I am making a purely detached and disinterested analysis. I have not yet completely moved to Windows, since the Unix subsystem started working properly only in Vista. And the direction that web development is moving towards is _'desktop on web'_. So here's MS trying to deliver just that. I am definitely interested.

> 
> >  Except for VB, Python, Ruby, all the main languages have C 
> > based syntax, that's php, perl, C#, c++, java, javascript. 
> > You have absolutely no point there. 
> 
> "Besides that Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?"  Point is there are successful
> non-C based languages.  Being C-based is not an anointment from God.

 When it comes to language, it is the really great developers that make a difference. The average devs might be large in number, but they do not matter. Really. Software is not writing 100 lines of code and feeling clever about it. Software is about building and maintaining extraordinarily large projects, and what you need is not simplicity as such, but rather the ability to abstract.

 

> >  The 6 of the most popular are like C. So you have no escape.
> 
> So you are arguing the popularity at the current time is all that matters?
> You said one should learn from history, maybe you should look at how once
> popular technologies became eclipsed when better adapted technologies
> appeared. That might be happening right now with Ruby and Python. For all we
> know, languages that are not C-based may be at the tipping point. Simplicity
> is the watchword these days, and C-based languages are decidedly non-simple.
> Non-C based languages are certainly easier for non-programmers than C-based
> languages because they omit aspects that make coding look so obscure. VB
> succeeded for that very reason (and has declined for other reasons.)

 Sorry, Ruby also has braces for code blocks and variables inside strings. And python a simple language? Are you joking? I don't think even the die hard python fanatic would claim that. Python is supposed to be an elite language. Ruby is not simple language either. Being completely OO, it is against your principle of _common man's_ language. In fact, as everyone points out, without Rails, I sure none of the code monkeys would ever touch Ruby, and run away scared from its OO.


> 
> >  Yes. But we already lost the desktop battle. The same 
> > arguments--Proprietary, MS controlled crappy 
> > interfaces--didn't prevent MS from completely taking over the 
> > desktop. 
> 
> That was a different era.

 MS is gaining hard on the server arena. Being a server services vendor, we have no choice but to fully support windows or lose a huge market. IIS powers 31% of the websites now.

> 
> MS of today is not the same MS of 20 years ago.  I was talking to a 3rd
> party tools vendor in the MS space just two days ago and he lamented how MS
> has changed; it's become very regimented with a command and control
> management style and people are not allowed to make the same kind of
> decisions, and many of the really sharp people have left.

 To me they look good enough, especially considering their size.
 
> 
> > They have rectified two 
> > of the primary problems with .NET--the lack of dynamic 
> > languages, and the inability to have desktop like 
> > controls--even though it took them 10 years.
> 
> 10 years too late.

 Yes. Obviously. But they learned, and there is still life ahead.