<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PHP vs. VB6</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.webdevelopment2.com/php-vs-vb6/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.webdevelopment2.com/php-vs-vb6/</link>
	<description>Quick and Dirty Web Development for Web 2.0: CakePHP, Prototype, JQuery, and lots more.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2011 05:21:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.webdevelopment2.com/php-vs-vb6/comment-page-1/#comment-845</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.webdevelopment2.com/2006/11/27/php-vs-vb6.htm#comment-845</guid>
		<description>I agree. PHP and VB6 need not be compared. VB6 is a RAD; PHP is an interpreted scripting language designed for website development. They were intended for two different purposes. 

Writing a web application in VB6 is difficult. Writing a desktop application in PHP is rediculous. Both serve valuable purposes.

As far as an application development language, VB6 is, in my opinion, unequalled - even by the dot net languages. It can produce clean user interfaces that actually run faster than its dot net counterparts. It compiles to native code. It is simple to learn and the &quot;R&quot; in RAD is rapid. It beats anything else I have ever used. There is very little that can&#039;t be done in VB6, including standard dll&#039;s (yes, just like C++ - you just have to know how to do it.) It supports most OOP except for inheritance and reflection. (You can force both of these as well.)

PHP deals with the internet intuitively. It is easy to learn and does offer most OOP. It produces concise code and is well-adapted to thin or thick client applications.

Dot net languages have become very complex. There are more things to &quot;break&quot; than ever before. They are slower. (I don&#039;t care what the theory says. In actual practice, applications written in dot net are more lethargic than their compiled counterparts.) They also produce some serious code bloat. That being said, they can produce some very elegant, readable code. They become easier to maintain if well-written and handle documents intuitively. 

C++ is a great language for lower-level functions and some applications. It is generally more expensive to develop an application in C++ than in VB6 and it&#039;s a bit harder to maintain. Still, it has some great features and it stays very close to the machine.

Nothing beats assembly for tight, fast code. No serious developer writes an application in assembly anymore because of the sheer cost to develop and maintain the code. But certain routines are best written in assembly to keep them fast. 

I am becoming more disillusioned with the progress of computer languages. The greater hardware capacity is comparable to the LA Freeway; add more capacity and it will just fill up with junk. Sometimes my current computer runs as slowly as my first computer. Sad. At this rate, we&#039;ll soon need dual teraflop processors, 20 terabytes of RAM, a couple of 600 terabyte floppies, a widget arm, maniform, bacon stretcher, and an extra 5 hours in a day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. PHP and VB6 need not be compared. VB6 is a RAD; PHP is an interpreted scripting language designed for website development. They were intended for two different purposes. </p>
<p>Writing a web application in VB6 is difficult. Writing a desktop application in PHP is rediculous. Both serve valuable purposes.</p>
<p>As far as an application development language, VB6 is, in my opinion, unequalled &#8211; even by the dot net languages. It can produce clean user interfaces that actually run faster than its dot net counterparts. It compiles to native code. It is simple to learn and the &#8220;R&#8221; in RAD is rapid. It beats anything else I have ever used. There is very little that can&#8217;t be done in VB6, including standard dll&#8217;s (yes, just like C++ &#8211; you just have to know how to do it.) It supports most OOP except for inheritance and reflection. (You can force both of these as well.)</p>
<p>PHP deals with the internet intuitively. It is easy to learn and does offer most OOP. It produces concise code and is well-adapted to thin or thick client applications.</p>
<p>Dot net languages have become very complex. There are more things to &#8220;break&#8221; than ever before. They are slower. (I don&#8217;t care what the theory says. In actual practice, applications written in dot net are more lethargic than their compiled counterparts.) They also produce some serious code bloat. That being said, they can produce some very elegant, readable code. They become easier to maintain if well-written and handle documents intuitively. </p>
<p>C++ is a great language for lower-level functions and some applications. It is generally more expensive to develop an application in C++ than in VB6 and it&#8217;s a bit harder to maintain. Still, it has some great features and it stays very close to the machine.</p>
<p>Nothing beats assembly for tight, fast code. No serious developer writes an application in assembly anymore because of the sheer cost to develop and maintain the code. But certain routines are best written in assembly to keep them fast. </p>
<p>I am becoming more disillusioned with the progress of computer languages. The greater hardware capacity is comparable to the LA Freeway; add more capacity and it will just fill up with junk. Sometimes my current computer runs as slowly as my first computer. Sad. At this rate, we&#8217;ll soon need dual teraflop processors, 20 terabytes of RAM, a couple of 600 terabyte floppies, a widget arm, maniform, bacon stretcher, and an extra 5 hours in a day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

