What language?

[h4ck3rpr0n3]

It is, that's where I go for a basis of what a web language is - then I branch out and read tutorials and books.

[Apetrick]

Awesome, thanks.

[grinch]

Yeah I trust w3schools. Good explanations there

[Almost]

If you're learning PHP, you will have to also learn mysql. They are married. PHP does the work and mysql provides the db backend with the data PHP uses. But PHP can't do it all, you will need some scripting.

I feel like a grammar nazi, but seriously, I died a little inside when you said mysql . SQL is the language, mysql is a (crappy crappy crappy!) most-used-by-cheap-hosts implementation of it. As long as you aren't used to any specific dialect, learn any other. You will be thankful when you ever get into the advanced stuff!

That being said, fat chance your hosting only has mysql and you'll never need that advanced stuff...

[grinch]

I feel like a grammar nazi, but seriously, I died a little inside when you said mysql . SQL is the language, mysql is a (crappy crappy crappy!) most-used-by-cheap-hosts implementation of it. As long as you aren't used to any specific dialect, learn any other. You will be thankful when you ever get into the advanced stuff!

That being said, fat chance your hosting only has mysql and you'll never need that advanced stuff...

for being a "grammer nazi" you did not even correct any grammer

mysql is correct, NOT SQL, as mysql is what is married to PHP, not SQL/M$SQL/etc. There are PHP/mysql combo packages for apache. mysql is open-source and is the most commonly used implementation. Other SQL are not free and open-source, which is why it is the most common. Why pay for something that you can get legally, for free, and is a very well supported implementation? Why choose a closed-source implementation like M$SQL that is full of security holes, and can not be patched by the community?

Really, who wants to pay M$ or Oracle any money for using their SQL, when there is a MUCH SAFER implementation in mysql

[h4ck3rpr0n3]

I agree, I use MySQL whenever I do something in PHP and it works just fine. I refuse to pay for something when there's a perfectly good alternative for free that has no problems.

[Almost]

I meant "like" a grammar nazi, because I was nitpicking, and "attacking" you on a single word. My English is way too bad to start correcting people's grammar. Of course it was simply a hook to share some knowledge / give some advice, but I do not seem to be believed on my word. So let's eleborate.

MySQL being so tightly connected to PHP is only true for cheap hosting, standard packages on shared hostings, etc. PDO verions are available for a much wider range of databases. Almost every database can simply be installed for PHP with only a few commands / clicks. Many large enterprises prefer the paid MS's SQL server or Oracle, which are indeed more powerful, safer, and easier to manage. Many purists end up with more experimental DB's, such as CouchDB, simpler databases for simple tasks, such as SQLite, or simply more advanced DB's, such as PostgreSQL.

MySQL is open source, but not free. There is indeed a free version of it available. The cheapest non-free version of MySQL actually costs USD 2000 / year!!! Oracle has free versions, too. MS SQL too. PostgreSQL is truly free and open sourced, even the full version.

MySQL is NOT  much safer, especially from the DBA point-of-view and in default configuration... No foreign keys in MyISAM? That's just bad. Switch to InnoDB and you lose full-text-search. Just to name the first things you'll probably encounter if you really dive into it. It's lacking support for fine-grained user access, advanced triggers, recursion, complex subqueries... the list goes on (although TBH, it was much worse 5 years ago).

Please don't make about costs that are simply not true! People keep repeating each other, which is part of the reason why MySQL is apparently known as the only free database! And if the costs aren't an argument anymore, the only ones left are the availability and popularity. Choose for yourself, but please keep an open mind...

[grinch]

MySQL being so tightly connected to PHP is only true for cheap hosting, standard packages on shared hostings, etc.

Hosting has nothing to do with the marriage between PHP and mysql. There are packages for most linux that combine a php and mysql install for apache. Similar packages do not exist for other DBs with PHP. "Cheap" hosting may take advantage of this marriage, it did not create it.

I wanted to ask about this "cheap" hosting you keep referring to, is this cheap in price, or cheap in quality? Is it lesser quality hosting because it uses free alternatives instead of expensive proprietary solutions? Are you saying you would prefer to pay more than you need to?

Many large enterprises prefer the paid MS's SQL server or Oracle, which are indeed more powerful, safer, and easier to manage.

Yes, and we here at HackThePlanet appreciate those organizations that choose M$SQL or Oracle over the much safer mysql. Open-source products are inherently safer vs a company that controls its own source, so mysql will always be a safer choice over M$ or Oracle. Calling those proprietary DBs more powerful is an opinion, and powerful in this sense may be a relative term. They are NOT however safer or easier to manage than mysql. That is fact, as evidenced by a search of the National Vulnerability DB, and the extensive management tools and support documentation for mysql. When the source is open, anyone can author what they need and share it, leaving the "best" tool to be chosen, not just whatever tools M$ or Oracle decide to give you, like in their closed source model.

MySQL is open source, but not free.

Wrong. It is free. What you purchase from them is for support, tools, or add-ons. Some paid versions include specialized features, abilities to use different storage engines, tools, monitoring applications, etc. The community edition of mysql, is open-source, free, and will do whatever is needed. Some companies want to pay for support, they want to pay someone else to be accountable for their DB. Those are the companies that should be using a paid DB; mysql paid, M$, Oracle. If you have the brains to do it yourself, its mysql, hands down

[Almost]

The hosting has to do with the marriage, since any beginner, without any prior preference or experience, will just use what is provided, and stick to it. Yes, LAMP exists, but that's hardly an argument. Hostings do not use LAMP. Also, I'm not sure why you would say there are no alternative DB's having such a package. See for example LAPP for PostgreSQL or LAFP for Firebird. Either way, a one-time procedure like installation being a few minutes faster is not a good reason to base your choice upon. It's not important for the beginning web developer (who has his software installed for him) nor for the hoster (who does not use LAMP but will build himself) nor for the advanced solutions (who will gladly invest some time and money in a properly configured database of choice).

I refer to the cheap hostings as the type of hosting a beginner will most likely buy. As opposed to having your own server (park), sysadmins and DBA's. In the latter case, you will most definitely choose any software package you like and need for you solution.

About the tools, you can argue. I lke MySQL's Workbench, but the standard interface of SQL Server worked like a breeze that one time I used it. PGAdmin is very good, other MySQL tools I never tried. Open source is a good way to help the possibility of good tools, but it does not ensure it is better than a closed-source money-thrown-at tool.

Powerfulness of the DB's is not just an opinion, plenty of benchmarks along with the documentation itself back it up.

I misinterpreted the GPL License of the community edition, and thought you could only use it non-commercially. My bad there. It is not the only DB with a free version, though, as I said previous post.

About the safety: I am inclined to let your experience count, but seriously, it is hard to draw conclusion from searching the NVDB. Closed-source software is not automatically unsafe, and open-source is not automatically safe.
Extensive support documentation is not unique for MySQL and no proof of ease of managing.

You do ignore important points I made though:
- MySQL is bad from user perspective. It misses important features when your needs go further than simple SELECTs and INSERTs. The engine is slower than most competitors.
- There are good, free, alternatives.
- No reason to use MySQL is not applicable for PostgreSQL, except availablity and popularity.

@h4ck3rpr0n3: Sounds reasonable, but you do not need to pay and MySQL does have problems. But if you're used to it now, well, don't fix what ain't broke. Just think about this thread if you ever want to do a FTS in a transaction

(APetrick please give a shout if you think we are hijacking your thread... )

[h4ck3rpr0n3]

Alright, I think since you both have your points made and it's obvious that this could go on forever that maybe we should stop this little debate? I think we all understand by now and new comers can see the benefits of both sides which IMO is good but too much of this and will be bad.

========================Debate Barrier=====================================

[paviya]

Okay guys I am thinking about learning. Most of the stuff from w3schools.com does anybody know if that's a reliable source?

Ya,it's very help you....