Let me just start by saying that there's nothing wrong with Visual Basic. I use VB.Net to fill my wallet, and I have to say it's very nice to work with. VS.Net is one of the best IDE's I've ever used, and the .Net framework is really nice, and what sets VB.Net apart from VB6. And if you're using .Net, you could be using C# or VB.Net and it doesn't really make much of a difference in what you can achieve.I also don't get that quote about PHP being VB for the web, because VB has been on the web for many years, both as VBScript in old ASP, and currently in VB.Net in ASP.Net.

Anyway, I can see where they're coming from. PHP is a big mishmash of stuff. It started out as being non-object oriented like C, and has now moved on to being object oriented. So, only a small subset of the available tools object oriented, and the rest isn't. Some libraries such as mysqli come in both OO and non-OO flavours. This kind of reflects the current state of VB, where you have the well thought out .Net framework, with a bunch of stuff left over from VB 6 that seems like it will never go away.

I really like using the "newer" languages like VB.Net and Java, because the Framework/API is just so well laid out. Everything seems to make sense, and all the fuctions are in the right place, and documented well. I think that this is where PHP is lacking. Although everything is really well documented (complete with user annotations), I find that it's very unorganized, and there is a whole bunch of duplication with many libraries providing the same functionality. PHP as a language isn't bad, althought I think that is would be nice to have a better thought out API like Java or .Net.

Nice comments, Kibbee. I agree that PHP seems to be a little less consistent and organized than the vendor-sponsored frameworks BUT it's probably a product of being an open source language/framework/library and an attempt to be agile. I'll trade language/framework agility for consistency any day, so long as I have unit tests to make sure my project stays working.

My guess is that when he said "PHP is the Visual Basic of the Web" he meant that it's easy to use and not-object oriented, referring to the old VB. Otherwise they may have said VB.NET -- which I consider to be a completely different language -- instead. I seem to remember reading that the old VBers don't like VB.NET...

I can't speak for the intentions of the quote though, so I don't know. Maybe PHPers see being non-object oriented as an advantage of usability? It makes sense, not all "web programmers" know the object-oriented paradigm ... and it's simpler to think of web pages programmed linearly and self-contained/atomic (besides includes).

They seem to dump on Rails for being too computer-science-ish, so maybe being OO/MVC is what they mean? It's hard to say.

I don't get it. Why compare PHP with Rails? PHP is a language. Rails is a framework. If anything has to be compared with each other, it should be a language against another language, or a framework against another framework. Ruby vs PHP. Rails vs Symfony/CakePHP/CodeIgniter/Prado/etc. But for the love of God, not PHP vs Rails. It's just a wrong way of comparing things.

Evan: that's part of the problem, yes. I talked about it because that's what people compare. But in general I agree: compare a framework against a framework. That's part of the reason why my subject is "Why PHP vs Rails?".

Parts of Rails, like ActiveRecord, can be used outside of a web framework entirely ... which is why they might be suitable for a language library like PHP if they were "translated" into PHP.

The most interesting implication of the PHP vs Rails question is: why is the Ruby side unified by Rails and the PHP side is splintered into so many framework choices? What does that say about PHP ...or open source web development? Why hasn't a "unified" framework for PHP been made by the PHP guys themselves?

But the real question is: How do these PHP frameworks compare against themselves and to Rails? Maybe the PHP vs Rails question is really just all of the PHP frameworks vs Rails.

I guess we could call PHP, VB for the web, if we were talking about VB6. I think it would be more accurate to call it "open source ASP" (not .Net). That's pretty much exactly what it is. They are pretty much the same, and only differ by the syntax used to actually program.

I would say that having a unified framework can be a good thing for many reasons. with a unified framework, there's much less overlap, and code could be integrated a lot easier. You'd probably have a lot of problems for instance, if you wanted to combine 2 projects, one using CakePHP, the other using Symfony. Although I've never used either, so I really can't say. Also, most PHP programmers, from what I've seen, use no framework at all. This can make for some pretty hard to read code, since each programmer will do things in a completely different way.

Even with a good framework, you will get a lot of people that don't use it, simply because they don't feel that it fits their needs. Looking at ASP.Net, there's the framework, and the API. Even though most people lump them all into one, I like to consider them seperately. The framework for me, is that drag-and-drop RAD form designer, using web controls, and other things of that nature. I find that a lot of people use ASP.Net, without using those tools, and they all have their own reasons for doing this. On the other hand, everybody uses the API, which is basically the big function/class library. For those who are familiar with Java, it's like Struts being the framework which uses the Java API. You can do JSP without using Struts.

Which leads to PHP. Since their is no set framework there's a better chance you will find one that will suit your needs, without having to write your own. Although writing your onw is probably the best idea if you have a major project resting on it. It can be much more specialized and do exactly what you require it to do. Having no set framework really leads to some interesting tools. SimpleXML comes to mind. Load up your xml doc, and you immediately have an object that maps to it. Visit the docs page [http://ca.php.net/manual/en/ref.simplexml.php] to see what I mean. I've never seen anything like that in any other language, and I'm not sure if you'd ever really see it included in something like .Net (if it's even possible, because I think it's necessary that the language is dynamic for this to be possible).

You can not compare Rail to PHP. You can only compare Ruby language to PHP language. At that perspective, PHP has certainly a much bigger advantage over Ruby, which explicitly loses all its power without Ruby on Rails. So dont make you bet on Ruby or Rails.

Ruby on Rails is about a good idea for simple things. Therefore, Rails can be forked very easily in any language. Java has Trails. PHP has had CakePHP one year ago and now Rails lessons reproduced in Zend Framework and SolarPHP framework are even far better.

Why Ruby when we have a much more powerful PHP? Why Rails when we have Zend Framework and SolarPHP much more elegant?

How is PHP more "powerful" than Ruby? How are the PHP frameworks more "elegant"?

After reading Update Monday 1:44pm:

It seems, from my understanding, that in Ruby, everybody has decided to go with Rails, because without it, you can't program anything for the web. However, in PHP, without any framework, you can produce something, that will work, and maybe fulfill all your needs. You can pick a framework if you find one that works, or make your own framework also. This may create extra work, and make it hard for companies to find programmers who can understand the framework, however, I don't think that's really a big issue. The framework should be the easiest part of joining a new team. If it isn't, then your framework is probably too complicated. Learning the business rules that apply, becoming familiar with the data you're dealing with, and becoming familiar with the actual code, that's set up around the framework, will take much longer than learning the framework itself.

Before working at my current Job, I hadn't programmed that much in VB.Net. However, it didn't take long to pick up the framework, because the framework is simple. That's the entire point of the framework. To be simple.

Saying you can just jump into a Rails project and quickly understand it probably a bit of a stretch. Your learning curve may be reduced a little, because you already know the framework, but each company you work for may go at things in a slightly different way. Maybe the decided to go against the framework, and something some other way, because they found it worked better for them. Then the new guy has the new way, which may be even harder, because he has to unlearn what he has learned. So, while it may help things a little to already be familiar with the framework, I still think there is a lot to understand apart from the framework. The framework is only the tip of the iceberg.