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 unp
opular, while Ruby gets such a lot of press?

> which to pick?   For many people, Ruby is more "fun" and you can't discoun
t
> 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?
>
> [url]http://mvolo.com/blogs/serverside/archive/2007/05/29/The-latest-on-the-FastC[/ur
l]
> GI-project-and-PHP-support-on-IIS.aspx
> [url]http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/10/31/PHP-and-the-FastCGI-Module[/ur
l]
> -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 w, whi
le the PHalanger Devs were picked up in October. So maybe Andi knows somethi
ng about why the PHalanger
devs were moved to Ruby?


 
>
> Then it amazes me that you currently think SilverLight is revolutionary wh
en
> 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 meanin
g. But silverlight finally brings web to MSs domain of expertise--the deskto
p. I am making a purely detached and disinterested analysis. I have not yet 
completely moved to Window
s, since the Unix subsystem started working properly only in Vista. And the 
direction that web development is moving towards is _'desktop on web'_. So h
ere's MS trying to deliver just that. I am definitely interested.

> 
>
> "Besides that Ms. Lincoln, how was the play?"  Point is there are successf
ul
> 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 dif
ference. 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 i
t. Software is about build
ing and maintaining extraordinarily large projects, and what you need is not
 simplicity as such, but rather the ability to abstract.


 
>
> 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. Simplici
ty
> is the watchword these days, and C-based languages are decidedly non-simpl
e.
> Non-C based languages are certainly easier for non-programmers than C-base
d
> 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. An
d 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 langua
ge 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.


> 
>
> That was a different era.

MS is gaining hard on the server arena. Being a server services vendor, we h
ave 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 M
S
> 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.

> 
>
> 10 years too late.

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

On Saturday 11 August 2007 21:52:28 K T Ligesh wrote:

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

Could you check your sources please. Netcraft doesn't always right. And park
ed
servers of godaddy doesn't mean everyone hurrying to that silverlight.

Regards

Sancar

> On Saturday 11 August 2007 21:52:28 K T Ligesh wrote:
> 
>
> Could you check your sources please. Netcraft doesn't always right. And pa
rked
> servers of godaddy doesn't mean everyone hurrying to that silverlight.
>
> Regards
>
> Sancar

My source is netcraft. Ironical, your accusation. Earlier MS supporters used
 to say Apache's large share came from all the useless parked websites. Now,
 they have moved to MS. Whatever. The thing is, by whatever means, MS is cre
ating a market perception
that they have a significant share. The nuances are irrelevant.

Personally, I am finally sort of starting to like MS stuff starting with Vis
ta. Vista even has Symlinking. And the unix subsystem is good enough that I 
can finally run graphical apps from inside Xterm.

K T Ligesh wrote:

>  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?

I think you can remove the ".NET" from your question and just ask: "Why does
Ruby gets such a lot of press?"  My answers:

1.) It is new, and people like new.
2.) It has an egomanical huckster showman propmoting it.
3.) The language adds lots of syntax sugar which to many people makes
programming more fun.
4.) Building a system in Rails is far more productive than raw PHP
5.) Learning how to build modules for a Rails app is easy, especially when
compared to something like Drupal
6.) The Ruby platform hasn't splintered into many CMs and frameworks; there
is only Rails and all the momentum goes to it.

Of all those reasons I'd say #6 is the most difficult to overcome. PHP has
become a victim of its own success. As a prospective PHP developer I have
too many choices, which can lead to paralysis or infighting. And one thing I
find infuriating is how little effort from the PHP community has gone into
establishing standards for integration between all these apps and
frameworks.  Try to get WordPress, Mediawiki, Drupal, and vBulletin to work
together, for example, is an active in futility.

Python has WSGI, what does PHP have?  Personally I think the best thing PHP
could do for improving it's position in the world is to band together and
establish an eqivalent to WSGI that addresses userbase integration.  If the
PHP community could join all those disparate apps into one big family it
would strengthen PHP far beyond anything Rails could take away.

Secondly, if you can add a little syntax sugar to keep PHP from being so
darn verbose and apply a little DRY principle, that would help too. '-)

> 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 w, while the PHalanger Devs were
> picked up in October. So maybe Andi knows something about why
> the PHalanger devs were moved to Ruby?

So?  You accuse MS of conspiracy against PHP. Clearly if they were against
PHP they wouldn't have worked to get PHP running better on IIS.  My point is
valid.

>  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.

Personally, being a student of HTTP and the efforts of the W3C and
technologies that have succeeded on the web and those that have failed, I
believe efforts to move the desktop to the web are, in the best case, doomed
to failure. In the worst case, I believe they are doomed to cause the web at
large to fail, to cave in under its own weight.  Frankly, I think the former
is more likely.

>  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.

A more arrogant statement has never been made.

The problem is thinking that great devs are all that matters. Actually devs
that can understand how to relate to the average user let alone average dev
are those who have the ability to make great positive contributions. Great
devs have no issue with complexity, whereas the average person is
overwhelmed by it. Great devs simply don't know how to relate. Case in
point, look at RDF vs. RSS. The former was designed by great devs, the
latter by average devs.  Guess which one became significant?  The one that
the average devs could understand.

Frankly I view one of my strengths being that I'm *not* a great dev. If I
was, I simply couldn't relate to the needs of the rest of the world.

> Software is not
> writing 100 lines of code and feeling clever about it.
> Software is about building and maintaining extraordinarily
> large projects,

Some software is about large projects, but a lot more software is about
small projects and more importantly, components. All open-source software to
speak of is either comprised of many components or is such a component.

> and what you need is not simplicity as such,
> but rather the ability to abstract.

Hah!  Tell that to the people are are *not* using RDF.   RDF is all about
abstraction. Too much so.  Simplicity is winning the world over today as a
way to manage information overload, in case you haven't noticed. Google,
iPod, and more.

Languages are evolving. C-based languages are evolving too, but C-based
languages may be too stuck in the past to effectively evolve. They has too
many concepts that are incompatible with newer, more elegant, and more
simple languages.

BTW, one incredibly beautiful language I recently learned is from MS:
PowerShell. Its simple but scales its complexity well. OTOH, its language
design needed a clean sheet; it wouldn't have worked on the back of a legacy
C-based language.

>  Sorry, Ruby also has braces for code blocks and variables
> inside strings.

Did you not notice that I said I wasn't a fan of Ruby?

> And python a simple language? Are you joking?
> I don't think even the die hard python fanatic would claim
> that.

I guess you've not read any of the books on Python programming that I've
been reading lately. Alex Martelli discusses how Python focuses on being
simple to understand. BTW, simple language does not mean "simple under the
covers", it means "simple to use."

And yes, Python can scale in complexity, but it is very easy to get into and
it is very easy to do basic things in. It is also very easy to read, much
more so than PHP (I'm thinking of Drupal modules at the moment.)  And Python
has the ability to define syntaxes for domain specific languages (as does
Ruby.)

For example, I just watched a presentation of SQLAlchemy the other night.
Brilliantly simple; I could teach a 12 year old how to use it.

> Python is supposed to be an elite language.

By whose definition?

> Ruby is not simple language either. Being completely OO, it is against
> your principle of _common man's_ language.

Which I agree with 100%. That's why I don't like Ruby.

> 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.

I highly doubt OO is that off-putting these days. It was in 1990 when i was
first teaching it, but it is not today.

>  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.

But IIS supports PHP as I quoted already. What's the problem?

>  To me they look good enough, especially considering their size.

But you are not on the inside so your view is not as clear. '-)

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

We'll see.

--
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us

On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 03:44:03PM -0400, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> K T Ligesh wrote:
> 
>
> So?  You accuse MS of conspiracy against PHP. Clearly if they were against
> PHP they wouldn't have worked to get PHP running better on IIS.  My point 
is
> valid.

It becomes more convoluted, and now definitely it is looking like a conspira
cy. MS is promoting on PHP on windows but purposefully scuttling its develop
ment on .NET. Why? Again, give me some reason for that. I am now intrigued. 
Why is there such a antipo
dal reactions from MS regarding the same thing?
 
>
> Personally, being a student of HTTP and the efforts of the W3C and
> technologies that have succeeded on the web and those that have failed, I
> believe efforts to move the desktop to the web are, in the best case, doom
ed
> to failure. In the worst case, I believe they are doomed to cause the web 
at
> large to fail, to cave in under its own weight.  Frankly, I think the form
er
> is more likely.

To be frank, Web programming with css, table, div etc is a terrible thing. I
t is a completely structureless madhouse. As a developer, I prefer creating 
the entire gui by calling functions rather than by printing strings. The lat
ter is what makes web deve
lopment so difficult. Anyway, whether silverlight will succeed or not is irr
elevant; it can't hurt anyone to have PHP on .NET nevertheless.

OK, silverlight fails miserably. So what? PHP on .NET will still empower mil
lions of PHP developers to explore new avenues, and come into contact with t
he new programming ideas that .NET library has. It can only be good.

> A more arrogant statement has never been made.
>
> The problem is thinking that great devs are all that matters. Actually dev
s
> that can understand how to relate to the average user let alone average de
v
> are those who have the ability to make great positive contributions. Great
> devs have no issue with complexity, whereas the average person is
> overwhelmed by it. Great devs simply don't know how to relate. Case in
> point, look at RDF vs. RSS. The former was designed by great devs, the
> latter by average devs.  Guess which one became significant?  The one that
> the average devs could understand.
>
> Frankly I view one of my strengths being that I'm *not* a great dev. If I
> was, I simply couldn't relate to the needs of the rest of the world.


RSS is not a language. The idea of programmer is to write extraordinarily co
mplex programs whose very purpose is to hide the complexity from the end use
r. My day job involves building graphical interfaces--even though I personal
ly do not use them--to hid
e the complexity of the system from the end user.


> 
>
> Some software is about large projects, but a lot more software is about
> small projects and more importantly, components. All open-source software 
to
> speak of is either comprised of many components or is such a component.

Just previously you complained how difficult it is to stitch together drupal
, wordpress etc. Why? Because there is no single person who can handle that 
kind of complexity. Complexity is the key. And complexity exists so that it 
can hide itself from the e
nd user. That's programming. You make your programming incredibly complex so
 that your user doesn't have experience it.

Drupal, wordpress etc has decided to keep it simple. What's the end result? 
Complexity has been passed on to the end user. This is one of the absurditie
s of Open Source. Programmers are saying: We want simplicity, so we will thr
ow all the complexity at t
he end user.


> 
>
> Hah!  Tell that to the people are are *not* using RDF.   RDF is all about
> abstraction. Too much so.  Simplicity is winning the world over today as a
> way to manage information overload, in case you haven't noticed. Google,
> iPod, and more.

RDF is not a language.

>
> Languages are evolving. C-based languages are evolving too, but C-based
> languages may be too stuck in the past to effectively evolve. They has too
> many concepts that are incompatible with newer, more elegant, and more
> simple languages.
>
> BTW, one incredibly beautiful language I recently learned is from MS:
> PowerShell. Its simple but scales its complexity well. OTOH, its language
> design needed a clean sheet; it wouldn't have worked on the back of a lega
cy
> C-based language.

Powershell is not meant for writing applications. But funnily enough, I love
 powershell, because it is pure C#. You gotta love MS, how they are screwing
 over their VB programmers. No more VBscript. Now even Windows shell scripti
ng uses C. Ha.  That's ano
ther reason I have started liking MS.


 
>
> I guess you've not read any of the books on Python programming that I've
> been reading lately. Alex Martelli discusses how Python focuses on being
> simple to understand. BTW, simple language does not mean "simple under the
> covers", it means "simple to use."

To be frank, python focuses how to make it easy for the compiler writer to g
et away with least amount of features. Python doesn't even allow you to embe
d variables in strings. How insane can it get? And you need to add 'self' to
 every method in a class.
Python existed because perl was really stupid. I am happy that because of ru
by, python mania has died down.


>
> And yes, Python can scale in complexity, but it is very easy to get into a
nd
> it is very easy to do basic things in. It is also very easy to read, much
> more so than PHP (I'm thinking of Drupal modules at the moment.)  And Pyth
on
> has the ability to define syntaxes for domain specific languages (as does
> Ruby.)

Sorry. The general perception is that PHP is a bad language but simpler than
 Python, and that's why people perfer it. If you are so much against braces 
and C heritage, you might like it, but python is generally not considered as
 simple.


>
> For example, I just watched a presentation of SQLAlchemy the other night.
> Brilliantly simple; I could teach a 12 year old how to use it.
> 
>
> By whose definition?

People who use python.

 
>
> I highly doubt OO is that off-putting these days. It was in 1990 when i wa
s
> first teaching it, but it is not today.

That's the idea I get reading comments posted everywhere.

> 
>
> But IIS supports PHP as I quoted already. What's the problem?

Why stop there. Why not take the next step. As I said, for backend I will be
 using PHP/IIS, but what will I do for the silverlight frontend?


> 
>
> But you are not on the inside so your view is not as clear. '-)

It is irrelevant to me. I don't want to take any chances.

> 
>
> We'll see.

As I said, this is not a discussion of whether silvelight will succeed or no
t, it is about giving your PHP developers, the ability to develop apps in .N
ET platform too. If you merely consider that topic alone, then there is no a
mbiguity there: IT is a re
ally great thing.

So now the next step, what can we do to make this happen?

Thanks for the nice conversation.

Mike Wrote:
>
> Languages are evolving. C-based languages are evolving too, but C-based
> languages may be too stuck in the past to effectively evolve. They has too
> many concepts that are incompatible with newer, more elegant, and more
> simple languages.
>
> BTW, one incredibly beautiful language I recently learned is from MS:
> PowerShell. Its simple but scales its complexity well. OTOH, its language
> design needed a clean sheet; it wouldn't have worked on the back of a lega
cy
> C-based language.


Powershell is what I had always wished the Unix shells would do. Interaction
 via objects. Programming on Linux is a chore, because it is all _AD HOC_ te
xt processing. Now I don't mind parsing using proper algorithms, but Unix ha
s glorified this random 'a
wk `print $0 $1`'. How can you reliably write programs depending on such log
ic? I guess, it allows some people to feel clever, whipping out some crappy 
perl scripts to do ad hoc text processing :-).

I am now trying to replicate my zsh configuration on powershell. It is in ve
rsion 1.0 and not complete yet, but I hope they provide a means to remap all
 the keys. MS is a Unix Company now. They are screwing over their old VB pro
grammers and going the C w
ay, beacause, as I said, when it comes to coding, only great programmers mat
ter. Sorry. :-)

K T Ligesh wrote:
>  I am now trying to replicate my zsh configuration on
> powershell. It is in version 1.0 and not complete yet, but I
> hope they provide a means to remap all the keys. MS is a Unix
> Company now. They are screwing over their old VB programmers
> and going the C way, beacause,

Is every direction that affects somebody negative;y by definition "A screw
over?"  Sure seems that way.

> as I said, when it comes to
> coding, only great programmers matter. Sorry. :-)

You just go right on thinking that. '-)

--
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us

>  It becomes more convoluted, and now definitely it is looking
> like a conspiracy. MS is promoting on PHP on windows but
> purposefully scuttling its development on .NET. Why? Again,
> give me some reason for that. I am now intrigued. Why is
> there such a antipodal reactions from MS regarding the
> same thing?

Antipodal reaction?  LOL!  You kill me!  Different managers with different
view of priorities, that's all!

>  To be frank, Web programming with css, table, div etc is a
> terrible thing. It is a completely structureless madhouse. As
> a developer, I prefer creating the entire gui by calling
> functions rather than by printing strings. The latter is what
> makes web development so difficult.

That statement tells me you don't even realize why the web technology is so
resilient and has scaled so well. I only understand it because I recently
spend six month diving deep into old mailing list discussions and reading
specs, and I came out a believer.  Loose coupling that can accomdate failure
is key to the web, and strings provide that. For more local apps, structure
is okay. But even for local apps the lack of the equivalent of a UNIVERSAL
resource locator for stateless resources is a serious downside to that which
you hold in high regard.

But certainly it would take me years of repeating other people's arguments
to get the point across. May I suggest you read RESTful Web Services [1] and
then we could have this discussion?

> silverlight will succeed or not is irrelevant; it can't hurt
> anyone to have PHP on .NET nevertheless.

It can distract attention from where it might be better utilized.  FYI, I'm
not against this I just have a natural tendancy to provide a counterbalance
when I see other people being more zealous than pragmatic.

>  OK, silverlight fails miserably. So what? PHP on .NET will
> still empower millions of PHP developers to explore new
> avenues, and come into contact with the new programming ideas
> that .NET library has. It can only be good.

Maybe. Or maybe they just code in PHP classic and go about their business.

Listen, I'm not against this. I'm just saying "put your money where your
mouth is" and get coding.

> RSS is not a language.

Hmm. According to XML.COM, RSS is "a portal content language."   The reality
is a computer language is an abstraction layer that allows the user to
encode information for processing and/or representation.  Your point is
quibbling a nits.  RSS is a declaritive as opposed to procedural language
and the simplicity analogy still applies.

> The idea of programmer is to write
> extraordinarily complex programs whose very purpose is to
> hide the complexity from the end user. My day job involves
> building graphical interfaces--even though I personally do
> not use them--to hide the complexity of the system from
> the end user.

And to a blind men, an elephant is wall.  And to another, a snake. And to
another, a treee.  And so on.

Your perspectives are but one of many, as are mine.  But I at least
recognize those others persectives.

>  Just previously you complained how difficult it is to stitch
> together drupal, wordpress etc. Why? Because there is no
> single person who can handle that kind of complexity.

Never said there way.  My point about independant components actually
supports that concept.

> Complexity is the key. And complexity exists so that it can
> hide itself from the end user. That's programming. You make
> your programming incredibly complex so that your user doesn't
> have experience it.

You "make them complex?"  Do you really hear what you are saying?!?  No, you
factor the complexity out so that you can handle the complexity without it
causing you to make mistakes.

>  Drupal, wordpress etc has decided to keep it simple. What's
> the end result? Complexity has been passed on to the end
> user. This is one of the absurdities of Open Source.
> Programmers are saying: We want simplicity, so we will throw
> all the complexity at the end user.

That's not my take on Drupal.  My take is that the developers are pretty
much all brilliant, and they can't relate to the needs of lesser skilled
peopl; after all, they understand it why shouldn't everyone else?

OTOH, their module architecture is great if it were not for the PHP language
making it so verbose and hence complex.

>  RDF is not a language.

Yes above point about quibbling nits.

>  Powershell is not meant for writing applications.

"Not meant" for writing applications?  What inside information do you have
my dear friend?  Have you travelled to Redmond and met with the people on
the Powershell team and discussed Powershell with them?!?!?  (like I
have...)

> But funnily enough, I love powershell, because it is pure C#.

According to the book written by the PowerShell team lead, Powershell is
part Perl and part Python. It is not part C#.  And it doesn't have those
infernal semi-colons. '-)

> You gotta love MS, how they are screwing over their VB
> programmers. No more VBscript. Now even Windows shell
> scripting uses C. Ha.  That's another reason I have started
> liking MS.

Screwing over?  Everything's a conspiracy in your world I see.  I guess the
Ruby guys are screwing over the PHP guys too?

>  To be frank, python focuses how to make it easy for the
> compiler writer to get away with least amount of features.

And with that they allow Python to be built mostly in Python, and they've
created a really elegant language.  Your point is?

> Python doesn't even allow you to embed variables in strings.
> How insane can it get?

Here's how insane: You can take one feature from a language and claim it
discredits an entire language. Now THAT is insane.  The more you type, the
less credible you sound.

> And you need to add 'self' to every
> method in a class.

That's a design decision that many people agree with, myself included.

>  Sorry. The general perception is that PHP is a bad language
> but simpler than Python, and that's why people perfer it. If
> you are so much against braces and C heritage, you might like
> it, but python is generally not considered as simple.

Here's where PHP is simpler than Python. EVERY LINUX SHARED HOST IN THE
WORLD SUPPORTS IT BY DEFAULT.  Getting Python to work on a shared host can
be a PITA.  The base language itself has less confusing syntax and is thus
easier to work with than PHP

If all other platforms were on equal footing, I think PHP would not be so
strong.  But things aren't equal so in reality it is your opinion vs. my
own.
 
>
>  People who use python.

There is not a single collective mindset.  I use Python as well as PHP and I
don't see it as an elite language.  I do see it as a language that is far
more consistent than PHP. With PHP you pretty much have to remember function
names, parameter orders, etc. because there is no consitency.  Learn a few
things in Python and you already know a lot of the things you didn't learn
directly.

But we are so far off on a tangent that we are just wasting ours and other
people's time.
 
> code monkeys 
> 1990 when 
>
>  That's the idea I get reading comments posted everywhere.

I guess I'm not reading those same comments.
 
>
>  Why stop there. Why not take the next step. As I said, for
> backend I will be using PHP/IIS, but what will I do for the
> silverlight frontend?

Nothing is stopping you. Go for it.  (we are full circle now.)

>  As I said, this is not a discussion of whether silvelight
> will succeed or not, it is about giving your PHP developers,
> the ability to develop apps in .NET platform too. If you
> merely consider that topic alone, then there is no ambiguity
> there: IT is a really great thing.
>
>  So now the next step, what can we do to make this happen?

Recruite a team of crack developers who want the same and pick of the
Phlanger project.  Heck, go talk to Miguel at Novell and ask if he can
provide you some guidance.

>  Thanks for the nice conversation.

Ditto.

--
-Mike Schinkel
http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/
http://www.welldesignedurls.org
http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us



[1] http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596529260/

On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 01:48:33AM +0300, Sancar Saran wrote:
> Hello There,
> As A CMS author I want to say someting about yoru statements.
>
> On Saturday 11 August 2007 23:41:40 K T Ligesh wrote:
>
> Then I realize, there is no simple way or final solution for generating HT
ML
> pages. It have to be free.
>
> Genrating web pages something like designing in corel draw, you can't
> standardize it without significant design loss.

I have built a framework that does it all exactly like desktop. Yes, I lose 
flexibility, but I have no interest in printing html. I have generic drawing
 functions that takes the information and draws the windows. The total HTML 
code is around 6000, in 3
applications totalling of 120,000 lines. Very inflexible, but works for me.



> 
>
> If so, there was lots of PHP project depends on windows and we will see to
ns
> of request here for please can we run that php windows thing in linux.

Novel has ported Silverlight to linux. So the question of cross-platform for
 silverlight doesn't exist anymore.


>
> If you thing MS still give full support PHP as own languages on IIS after
> capturing %70 of web server market share, i'm sorry you are fool.  >
> MS wants every peny on PC world. First they bang other offices, then Web
> Browsers, then IM's, then SQL servers, Then Mail servers, then Borland (or
> other developer tools).

Everyone wants every penny in the world. Heck, even I want every penny in th
e world. It is just that MS has been the most succesful. That's OK. That's t
heir business, and they are doing it well. Anyway, MSs ethical conduct is ir
relevant.

> Their current target was Adobe especially Flash (because of success of fla
sh
> based media streaming, stil they don't understand because of code headcach
e
> even windows users chooses flash based sites). And new weapon was that sil
ver
> thingy. Of course they choose Ruby because it was very HOT for Marketing.
> There was tons of Ruby yada yada articles everery where. And there was not
ing
> new in PHP community.

MS financially supported Tomas and Lada when they were working on phalanger.
 I don't think MS is the culprit here. There is some reason why MS has dropp
ed PHP, I am trying to figure that out.


>
> I did not see any messages local bbs for ruby development or python
> development. They are good on papers and when some ordinary guy try to
> develop someting. IT was not good (or easy) enough as php.
>
> We had tons of matured products.
>
> My point of view PHP needs better things for browser side. Php needs focus
ing
> new features

I am talking about PHP on .NET, which is a server side technology. Silverlig
ht is a simple browser frontend for the backend web application, similar to 
Ajax. PHP on .NET has no divantage, and an implementation exists in a com
plete form, and my request
is that the community should take it seriously.

On Sunday 12 August 2007 02:33:14 K T Ligesh wrote:

>
>  Novel has ported Silverlight to linux. So the question of cross-platform
> for silverlight doesn't exist anymore.

Novel was fscked by M$. They are M$ puppy, they need M$ money to live thas w
hy
they bedding with M$. One upon a time Novell king of the PC networking. How
.

Also I don't remember anything big running with Mono.
 
>
>  Everyone wants every penny in the world. Heck, even I want every penny in
> the world. It is just that MS has been the most succesful. That's OK.
> That's their business, and they are doing it well. Anyway, MSs ethical
> conduct is irrelevant.

So use MS tools which MS wants it. MS does not want anybody, anyone, anythin
g
other than MS in PC sector.

If that Silver thingy successful enough next wersion will rubby# or someting
like that.

 
>
>  MS financially supported Tomas and Lada when they were working on
> phalanger. I don't think MS is the culprit here. There is some reason why
> MS has dropped PHP, I am trying to figure that out.
>

My bet is  "Because of Marketing". PHP on windows was not hot fusss. Even
suberbly support doesnt sound good.

And ruby syntaxed flash may attract somebody else.

M$ is not suberb tech company. M$ is suberb marketing company.
 
>
>  I am talking about PHP on .NET, which is a server side technology.
> Silverlight is a simple browser frontend for the backend web application,
> similar to Ajax. PHP on .NET has no divantage, and an implementation
> exists in a complete form, and my request is that the community should tak
e
> it seriously.

So I'm talking about, PHP was so easy to write programs. Those days
browserside was hot and I cannot use php on browser side.

Javascript, Flash and other things was much complicated to me and my kind. I
f
PHP offers someting on browser side (like xajax and xaja projects) by
internally and some standardization for  user input validation in PHP6 it wa
s
overkill for that ruby on rocket and silverlighty 2000watt.

We won the server side. New front was browser side. This is the battle of
desktop NOT moving WIndows desktop to WEB. Remember we don't want M$ else we
know C# and wrote applications in it not battling in PHP lists.

Regards

Sancar