Why LAMP?
There has been a lot of buzz lately about how quickly and easily you can build websites in Ruby on Rails, so why did I decide to stick to LAMP?
My primary concern was deployment and scaling. Clearly I was going to have a large number of websites to host at the end of this project (even more than I host already), and I was worried about the resources required to host that many ROR sites.
Although ROR claims to boost your productivity over other platforms, with the development of Fraction I’ve found that I’m just as if not more productive in PHP than I am with Rails. Many of the things in ROR that make your more productive (MVC, ActiveRecord, Templating to name a few) can be and are available in the LAMP environment.
ROR does allow you to get a prototype of your website up very fast, but to produce a complete production ready websites takes just as long as with LAMP.
Don’t get me wrong, I like ROR and what it has to offer, but for this project LAMP is a better fit. I prefer to use the right tool for the job, not the one that has the most buzz in the blogosphere.
July 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
i AM WORKING ON wamp, WINDOWS PLATOFRM is fine with me, then why is LAMP is been so overhyped? is there any special reason behind it? What ’s so special about LAMP tha WAMP?
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 am
WAMP based hosting have yet to reach the level of stability and performance of their LAMP counterpart.
Most web hosting companies stick with LAMP as it allows them to host more customer with the same resources, and fewer headaches (for example, not too many viruses target Linux these days).
This may change in the future as Zend is working with Microsoft to improve PHP on Windows, but until then I’ll be sticking with LAMP for hosting.
I use WAMP everyday, it is my development platform, so I certainly have nothing against it. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say I was using *AMP for Every5Weeks, but I was talking mainly about hosting in this post.