pzkpfw

The big bang is not about the origin of the Universe.

For one thing, a body is made of parts. If you lift a 60 kg weight with your arm, the arm has to cope will all 60 kg. A 60 kg person lifting themselves, does it in parts. Their neck lifts their head. Their core lifts their torso plus neck plus head. Their legs lift all the above. It's not an apples to apples comparison. A 60 kg person doing a one-handed pull up or press up, would be a fairer comparison.

You're still missing the point by miles.

Why "no"? That comment was about popularity (right or wrong), not availability. Ability to run on the same server at the same time isn't a counter point.

Absolutely. I do believe LAMPS has the majority. But that wasn't what the post I responded to was about.

I'd say that's all mostly wrong.There's nothing in particular that makes C# "slow". Sure it compiles down to an intermediate language (similar to Java) but with modern CPU's and the JIT compiler, you'd hardly know it. Certainly if you want ultimate speed something like C++ compiled to native code (and recent moves in .Net mean you can get that for C# anyway) or even assembler, but there's nothing about C# that makes it slow for a "huge application" - that need for speed is more about the particular type of application, not the size. Something with gobs of calculations being done in a simulation, might be better in C++ (or whatever) than C#, e.g. while people were sad to see Microsoft drop support for XNA, which made C# development for DirectX easier (though Unity is now helping with that), most real hard core games are built in C++. Further, Mono aside, while it's true C# (and .Net) generally target the Windows platform, that doesn't mean it's best (as implied) only for "Windows Applications". Plenty of heavily used websites (yes, with the site itself running on a Windows server) are built with Asp.Net (Web Forms or MVC) - and most of those are built with C# on the server side. "web-server application development is becoming more important in the market of web development" seems a bit of a tautology. If taken as "web development is important", there's no reason why PHP is specifically better than C#. That is, I'm not saying PHP is bad to learn, I just don't see why you'd downgrade C# and upgrade PHP on the basis of what you wrote.

I think that's a bit simplistic (though you may not have meant it quite as simply as it reads). This sort of thinking leads to (what seems to me a very common structure) where the data is model "OO-ishly" but then for processing the data objects are just passed to business logic in separate classes. That's actually fine for many uses, but when the business logic is modelled with the data you start to get a lot more of the benefits of OO (polymorphism and all that). For example, it's very common to see a Person object and a Dog object, then see them passed to the EstimateLifeSpan class, which then uses a switch/case statement to see what type of object it was passed, and do the appropriate calculation. It can be nicer for the Person and Dog objects to not only encapsulate their own data, but also the relevant methods (or calculations wrapped in properties), so something wanting the animals life span can just - whichever kind of animal object it has - call the EstimateLifeSpan method on the object itself. No big case/switch statement. (All helped along by interfaces and all that, with common properties and methods coming from some base Animal class ...) I do think the first structure is quite common, and most often the style people can be used to; the second "more OO-ish" structure can be "scary" to them. Anyway, my two cents on the OP (I'm sure I'm not the first), if someone has a Windows PC - just get one of the free "Express" versions of Visual Studio and go with C#. Plenty of help. Plenty of forums. A good free IDE. From there it's no big stretch to go Java or C++ or similar if required.