Best Code Language?, Which one is the best? Options

[Draygonia]

I am starting to tire of programming bought templates and such. I want to create a site that is efficient, lasting, dynamic and easy to program.

I would like to know what language of programming is the most dynamic, allowing you to do the most, make the best looking templates, allow you to easily change content and such.

I was looking for more of a vbulletin approach, I can easily change content by changing the settings in the control panel.

I would like to make the site easy to edit without having to download the index file and edit it and re-upload it, etc. One that loads fast would be nice as well. A site that accepts flash.

From what I hear, XML and CSS are the best approach and others still say PHP is the best and I hear a few think Javascript is the future. I know javascript is horrible security-wise and I would not like to run a site with horrible security.

So which one is the best language to learn first?

[pandy]

The output is always HTML and HTML ain't programming.

What I mean is that whatever server side language you use, the look of the page depends on the HTML (and CSS) your server side script spits out.

[Draygonia]

So no matter what, html is what the page will be in? Is php an output too? Because I see /index.php at the end of the forums link.

HTML and PHP are outputs? What should I learn if I want to completely customize a site from scratch and what books should I get to learn this?

[Christian J]

So no matter what, html is what the page will be in?

Yes. It's also possible to simulate a site with Flash, but usability is very poor.

Is php an output too? Because I see /index.php at the end of the forums link.

No, PHP is a programming language that runs on the server, and outputs HTML which is sent to the browser. The .php extension is just a convention, you can run PHP on sites with .html extensions too.

What should I learn if I want to completely customize a site from scratch

CSS.

and what books should I get to learn this?

I've hardly read a single book on web design, everything you need is on the web. Begin with this site's CSS reference.

[Draygonia]

Thanks, so I believe I should learn HTML and CSS? If I have time I should than go to XML?

[Christian J]

I would like to know what language of programming is the most dynamic, allowing you to do the most, make the best looking templates, allow you to easily change content and such.

I think PHP is the best server-side program language (but old-school programmers may prefer Perl). Server-side programs can be used to make editing of content more effective, but also create more advanced things forums or online shopping carts (with content I mean things like text or content-carrying images, as opposed to e.g. text color or decorational images).

I was looking for more of a vbulletin approach, I can easily change content by changing the settings in the control panel.

If you want to edit common content on all your pages (like a navigation menu) you might use server-side includes, these can easily be done with PHP or (the less powerful) SSI.

One that loads fast would be nice as well.

Again CSS is the way to go. Also be careful with convoluted layout tables and lots of large image files.

A site that accepts flash.

Flash can be embedded in any HTML document, but not all browsers display it due to lack of support or user settings. Search engines don't understand Flash.

a few think Javascript is the future

Just like CSS or Flash, Javascript should only be used as an enhancement for HTML, not as an alternative or replacement.

I know javascript is horrible security-wise and I would not like to run a site with horrible security.

That's not true, it may only be a security threat if the page's author tries to make it that way by exploiting browser security holes.

A real risk of (unintentionally) making your site a threat to its visitors might be by using a poorly written server-side script that permits malicious code injection from unsanitized form data or query strings. But this is nothing you need to worry about for the time being.

[Christian J]

Thanks, so I believe I should learn HTML and CSS?

Absolutely!

If I have time I should than go to XML?

No, XML is not used for web pages (though it can be used to generate HTML on a server).

But maybe you're thinking of XHTML, which for all practical purposes is the same as HTML but with a slightly different syntax. Personally I consider XHTML an unnecessary complication, and recommend that you begin with HTML (HTML4, to be exact).

[Draygonia]

Thanks, so I take it flash is a bad idea? Another person says that many people do not have flash plugins and that and I should not make a site that requires plugins or a high bandwidth requirement.

I heard about XML because it is what was used in my plugins for vbulletin.

HTML and CSS it is

[pandy]

I'd recommend HTML 4.01.

That's probably what Christian meant too, but in case you took him literally... HTML 4.0 was hastily revised and replaced by 4.01. There are few differences but they were the reason for the revision.

Thanks, so I take it flash is a bad idea? Another person says that many people do not have flash plugins and that and I should not make a site that requires plugins or a high bandwidth requirement

Flash can be great, but IMO a whole site, or page, shouldn't be made in flash. And it shouldn't rely on Flash as little as it should rely on JavaScript or CSS. The only thing you can count on to always be available is HTML. The rest is pretty fluff. Important site details, like navigation, shouldn't be flash either. But if you want flash for something fun and optional, sure.

[Draygonia]

Yah, cause I got a template with the header being flash and a few others, the rest were text and images.

So is the HTML section of this site for 4.01? Where would I learn how to code 4.01 and how long will that last before a new version comes out and the coding I learned is outdated?

I probably wont do flash, Its more frustrating than ... well everything, I cant even edit the text!

[Peter1968]

As for a new version, you have nothing to fear. HTML 4.01 is 10 years old, and although XHTML was supposed to supplant it, this probably won't happen (and hopefully won't happen).

Where to learn how to code it?

Right here is a good place to start.
http://htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/

This post has been edited by Peter1968: Feb 11 2007, 10:00 PM

[Darin McGrew]

I think PHP is the best server-side program language (but old-school programmers may prefer Perl).

Different server-side programming languages are appropriate for different things. At work, we used to use Cold Fusion, which is very similar in concept to PHP. Now, most production systems use Java servlets, although a few internal systems use Perl, Python, or other technologies.

So is the HTML section of this site for 4.01?

The WDG's HTML 4 reference is actually HTML 4.0, but there really aren't very many differences between HTML 4.0 and HTML 4.01.

As for a new version, you have nothing to fear. HTML 4.01 is 10 years old, and although XHTML was supposed to supplant it, this probably won't happen (and hopefully won't happen).

I agree that XHTML is unlikely to supplant HTML. The differences are either too insignificant or too severe, depending upon which version of XHTML you're talking about.

But WHATWG is working on HTML5. It looks like they're still working through the W3C, although WHATWG is clearly taking the initiative to develop HTML in ways that the W3C as a whole doesn't, given the W3C's focus on XHTML.

[pandy]

Don't worry, you don't have to bother with reading all the pages I link to below right now. Just keep in mind that they are there. For now, to use a proper HTML 4.01 doctype is all you have to do.

So is the HTML section of this site for 4.01? Where would I learn how to code 4.01 and how long will that last before a new version comes out and the coding I learned is outdated?

As Darin (and I) said, there aren't many differences. You have to go to the spec.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
Diffrences with HTML 4.0 are listed here.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/changes.html#19991224
It isn't as bad as it looks. Most changes are to the text of the spec itself, not to the standard. There's basically only one you need to know about. This one.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/chan...html#h-A.1.1.12
"17.3 The FORM element: Addition of the name attribute for backwards compatibility"
And not even that is something you have to worry about. Just keep in mind there are some difference. The important thing is that you use a HTML 4.01 doctype.
http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/doctype.html

Maybe you won't understand this now, just trust me. Browsers, since several versions back, use two rrendering modes. Standards Mode (AKA Strict Mode) and Quirks Mode. In Standard Mode they interpret CSS as close to the spec as they are capable of. In Quirks Mode they emulate older buggier versions of themselves. So in most situations you want Strict Mode. It so happens that the browser that started all this chose to use the doctype as a trigger for what rendering mode it should use. All the others if course followed the example. Using a complete HTML 4.01 doctype as shown on the page above is your best bet.
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/