Re: [WebDNA] WebDNA vs. PHP code examples
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2008
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 101128
interpreted = N
texte = WebDNA really shines the further you get into database stuff. Because databases are a part of the software, the field names just flow right into the syntax. It gives the programmer a much better connection to the data than is possible any other way. Pat On Oct 12, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: > Will Starck wrote: > > If anyone has any code snippet examples of a few lines of code in > WebDNA vs. > > something much longer that would be required in PHP code you post > them > > please? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Will Starck > > ------------------- > > NovaDerm Skincare Science > > http://www.novaderm.com > > wjs@novaderm.com > > 817-717-7377 > > > Hi Will, > I don't know if you will find code examples that show a > much "longer" form in PHP... maybe, rather, when all is added up. I > think > PHP and WebDNA have a lot of the same tag function that will be more > or less about the same length. > > I personally think WebDNA development is *time* is "shorter" because > of > it's intuitive syntax and it's innate data access (search) tools. > > However, lets compare (using W3 examples): > > Show something on condition------------------- > > PHP:: > $d=date("D"); > if ($d=="Fri") > echo "Have a nice weekend!"; > ?> > > WebDNA:: > [text]d=[date %a][/text] > [showif [d]=Fri] > Have a nice weekend! > [/showif] > > Another similar example....... > > PHP:: > $d=date("D"); > if ($d=="Fri") > echo "Have a nice weekend!"; > else > echo "Have a nice day!"; > ?> > > WebDNA:: > [text]d=[date %a][/text] > [if "[d]" = "Fri"] > [then] > Have a nice weekend! > [/then] > [else] > Have a nice day! > [/else] > [/if] > > > So both are around the same length. Which is more intuitive? > (Maybe a C++ guy will pick the PHP version) ;-) > > Here's more: > > Include something------------------- > > PHP:: > > > WebDNA:: > [include header.inc] > > > Date Stuff------------------- > > PHP:: > echo date("Y/m/d"); > echo "
"; > echo date("Y.m.d"); > echo "
"; > echo date("Y-m-d"); > ?> > > WebDNA:: > [date %Y/%m/%d]
> [date %Y.%m.%d]
> [date %Y-%m-%d]
> > > Functions-------------------- > > PHP:: > function writeMyName() > { > echo "Kai Jim Refsnes"; > } > > echo "Hello world!
"; > echo "My name is "; > writeMyName(); > echo ".
That's right, "; > writeMyName(); > echo " is my name."; > ?> > > > WebDNA:: > [function name=writeMyName] > [return]Kai Jim Refsnes[/return] > [/function] > > Hello world!
> My name is [writeMyName].
> That's right, [writeMyName] is my name. > > > I can go on, but the "intuitive difference" is the same throughout > all the tags... and yes, I think, overall, PHP would be more lengthy > when all is said and done. > However, I think the bigger difference is that the intuitive syntax, > coupled with WebDNA's search abilities are really where the > development > time is saved. > > Regarding PHP searching.. PHP most often uses MySQL for it's data > access. > Anyone who codes seriously in PHP will end up having to know MySQL. > Of course, > this may not be a bad thing. I am a big proponent of MySQL, and WebDNA > will continue to improve it's integration with MySQL and other > database > architectures. However, in my opinion, using MySQL > in many situations is just overkill. In fact, there are hundreds of > every day examples where using MySQL would be overkill.. especially > within the > WebDNA environment. I liken this > to firing up the Harley to go 2 blocks to the convenient store. > Its just over kill! ;-) > > Take a look at this W3 link about PHP and MySQL: > http://www.w3schools.com/php/php_ref_mysql.asp > > It's definately a learning curve. > > However, lets compare a simple delete record: > > PHP:: > $con = mysql_connect("localhost","mysql_user","mysql_pwd"); > if (!$con) > { > die("Could not connect: " . mysql_error()); > } > > mysql_select_db("mydb"); > mysql_query("DELETE FROM mytable WHERE id < 5"); > $rc = mysql_affected_rows(); > echo "Records deleted: " . $rc; > > mysql_close($con); > ?> > > > WebDNA:: > [delete db=mydb.db&lsIDdatarq=5] > Records deleted! > > :-) > > So I agree with Olin, PHP simply can't touch WebDNA's native and > convenient search abilities.. > (both [table..] and db= searching) > > Anway, after using WebDNA just about weekly for the last 10 years .. > (since > my first class with John Hill) ;-).. I can say that, to me, WebDNA > is a great > counterpart to creativity. The syntax is not so machine-like, yet it > still has significant power. A programmer can really get into the > zone and > make things happen with this language. I certainly know the drawbacks > of using WebDNA when compared to PHP (mostly having to do with > recognition, > and integration etc..).. but know that we are targeting > those drawbacks! Hopefully soon, these things won't be a significant > difference > to factor in. > > Hope that helps! > > Donovan (didn't spell check this one! ;-) > > > > > -- > Donovan D. Brooke PH/FAX: 1 (608) 291-2024 > ---------------------------------------------- > VP > WebDNA Software Corporation > 16192 Coastal Highway > Lewes, DE 19958 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list
. > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
WebDNA really shines the further you get into database stuff. Because databases are a part of the software, the field names just flow right into the syntax. It gives the programmer a much better connection to the data than is possible any other way. Pat On Oct 12, 2008, at 6:45 PM, Donovan Brooke wrote: > Will Starck wrote: > > If anyone has any code snippet examples of a few lines of code in > WebDNA vs. > > something much longer that would be required in PHP code you post > them > > please? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Will Starck > > ------------------- > > NovaDerm Skincare Science > > http://www.novaderm.com > > wjs@novaderm.com > > 817-717-7377 > > > Hi Will, > I don't know if you will find code examples that show a > much "longer" form in PHP... maybe, rather, when all is added up. I > think > PHP and WebDNA have a lot of the same tag function that will be more > or less about the same length. > > I personally think WebDNA development is *time* is "shorter" because > of > it's intuitive syntax and it's innate data access (search) tools. > > However, lets compare (using W3 examples): > > Show something on condition------------------- > > PHP:: > $d=date("D"); > if ($d=="Fri") > echo "Have a nice weekend!"; > ?> > > WebDNA:: > [text]d=[date %a][/text] > [showif [d]=Fri] > Have a nice weekend! > [/showif] > > Another similar example....... > > PHP:: > $d=date("D"); > if ($d=="Fri") > echo "Have a nice weekend!"; > else > echo "Have a nice day!"; > ?> > > WebDNA:: > [text]d=[date %a][/text] > [if "[d]" = "Fri"] > [then] > Have a nice weekend! > [/then] > [else] > Have a nice day! > [/else] > [/if] > > > So both are around the same length. Which is more intuitive? > (Maybe a C++ guy will pick the PHP version) ;-) > > Here's more: > > Include something------------------- > > PHP:: > > > WebDNA:: > [include header.inc] > > > Date Stuff------------------- > > PHP:: > echo date("Y/m/d"); > echo "
"; > echo date("Y.m.d"); > echo "
"; > echo date("Y-m-d"); > ?> > > WebDNA:: > [date %Y/%m/%d]
> [date %Y.%m.%d]
> [date %Y-%m-%d]
> > > Functions-------------------- > > PHP:: > function writeMyName() > { > echo "Kai Jim Refsnes"; > } > > echo "Hello world!
"; > echo "My name is "; > writeMyName(); > echo ".
That's right, "; > writeMyName(); > echo " is my name."; > ?> > > > WebDNA:: > [function name=writeMyName] > [return]Kai Jim Refsnes[/return] > [/function] > > Hello world!
> My name is [writeMyName].
> That's right, [writeMyName] is my name. > > > I can go on, but the "intuitive difference" is the same throughout > all the tags... and yes, I think, overall, PHP would be more lengthy > when all is said and done. > However, I think the bigger difference is that the intuitive syntax, > coupled with WebDNA's search abilities are really where the > development > time is saved. > > Regarding PHP searching.. PHP most often uses MySQL for it's data > access. > Anyone who codes seriously in PHP will end up having to know MySQL. > Of course, > this may not be a bad thing. I am a big proponent of MySQL, and WebDNA > will continue to improve it's integration with MySQL and other > database > architectures. However, in my opinion, using MySQL > in many situations is just overkill. In fact, there are hundreds of > every day examples where using MySQL would be overkill.. especially > within the > WebDNA environment. I liken this > to firing up the Harley to go 2 blocks to the convenient store. > Its just over kill! ;-) > > Take a look at this W3 link about PHP and MySQL: > http://www.w3schools.com/php/php_ref_mysql.asp > > It's definately a learning curve. > > However, lets compare a simple delete record: > > PHP:: > $con = mysql_connect("localhost","mysql_user","mysql_pwd"); > if (!$con) > { > die("Could not connect: " . mysql_error()); > } > > mysql_select_db("mydb"); > mysql_query("DELETE FROM mytable WHERE id < 5"); > $rc = mysql_affected_rows(); > echo "Records deleted: " . $rc; > > mysql_close($con); > ?> > > > WebDNA:: > [delete db=mydb.db&lsIDdatarq=5] > Records deleted! > > :-) > > So I agree with Olin, PHP simply can't touch WebDNA's native and > convenient search abilities.. > (both [table..] and db= searching) > > Anway, after using WebDNA just about weekly for the last 10 years .. > (since > my first class with John Hill) ;-).. I can say that, to me, WebDNA > is a great > counterpart to creativity. The syntax is not so machine-like, yet it > still has significant power. A programmer can really get into the > zone and > make things happen with this language. I certainly know the drawbacks > of using WebDNA when compared to PHP (mostly having to do with > recognition, > and integration etc..).. but know that we are targeting > those drawbacks! Hopefully soon, these things won't be a significant > difference > to factor in. > > Hope that helps! > > Donovan (didn't spell check this one! ;-) > > > > > -- > Donovan D. Brooke PH/FAX: 1 (608) 291-2024 > ---------------------------------------------- > VP > WebDNA Software Corporation > 16192 Coastal Highway > Lewes, DE 19958 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
Patrick McCormick
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Sorting Numbers (1997)
AutoCommit Preference? (1998)
WebCatalog can't find database (1997)
[countWords]? (1997)
Re(2): NT version and O'reily's WebSite (1997)
[WebDNA] Authenticating with Twitter OAuth API v1.1 (2013)
ListFields and [name] (1997)
Text data with spaces in them... (1997)
[shell]? (2000)
3rd request: What are SMSI's upgrade policies? (2003)
WebCat2b15MacPlugin - [protect] (1997)
[OT] Connect to MySQL (2004)
Ken's Data Manager (finally available I think ...) (2005)
Commitdatabase tag (1998)
Emailer setup (1997)
AND/OR searches in WebCat 3.07 (2003)
Applescript in Webcatalog problem (1997)
Re2: frames & carts (1997)
a little OT (2001)
WebCat2b15MacPlugIn - [authenticate] not [protect] (1997)