My First Real-World Exposure to .Net Programming
-
Not standards as in specs but standards as in conventions. Single biggest problem with ASP.NET; only allowed one form in a page. This is contrary to how, well, every other web framework/language works. ASP.NET tries to turn a web page into a WinForm. Buttons, events etc. It tries to turn a stateless system (HTTP) into a stateful one.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
This is simply not true. Stop using the "Designer", become a real programmer, and hand-code your ASP.Net pages. It's not a Windows Form, it's a web page. You can have multiple forms if you want. Event handling is a welcome addition which saves me from countless hours of JavaScript debugging. I've been doin this stuff for 22 years and the .NET Framework is the best thing to come along since the THINK Class Library. If you don't remember that library, then you have no perspective with which to comment. Dot Net is a thousand times better than anything we've had before, but if you're just learning programming, I can see where it might seem complicated - you just need some experience.
-
This is simply not true. Stop using the "Designer", become a real programmer, and hand-code your ASP.Net pages. It's not a Windows Form, it's a web page. You can have multiple forms if you want. Event handling is a welcome addition which saves me from countless hours of JavaScript debugging. I've been doin this stuff for 22 years and the .NET Framework is the best thing to come along since the THINK Class Library. If you don't remember that library, then you have no perspective with which to comment. Dot Net is a thousand times better than anything we've had before, but if you're just learning programming, I can see where it might seem complicated - you just need some experience.
You cannot have multiple forms with runat="server" in an ASP.NET page. (That is, without stupid hacks, tricks and cludges.) -- modified at 13:26 Thursday 10th August, 2006
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Not standards as in specs but standards as in conventions. Single biggest problem with ASP.NET; only allowed one form in a page. This is contrary to how, well, every other web framework/language works. ASP.NET tries to turn a web page into a WinForm. Buttons, events etc. It tries to turn a stateless system (HTTP) into a stateful one.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
Single biggest problem with ASP.NET; only allowed one form in a page
That's not correct. It only allows one server-side form... i.e. a form in which ASP specific components (e.g. asp:lable) will be evaluated. You can still have multiple forms and access their values etc on the server as you would normally.
Paul Watson wrote:
It tries to turn a stateless system (HTTP) into a stateful one.
Well, I agree with you there but it has been a long time since I used a website that was stateful in nature. Almost every website I use these days knows my session, my setup, my configuration etc... all done via cookies. Cookies themselves are a way to get around the stateless nature of the web.
Paul Watson wrote:
ASP.NET tries to turn a web page into a WinForm. Buttons, events etc
It tries to do that but doesn't force you to. You an still use the normal method but then you are more or less coding static pages. Anyway. Go RoR! hehe :-)
Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Single biggest problem with ASP.NET; only allowed one form in a page
That's not correct. It only allows one server-side form... i.e. a form in which ASP specific components (e.g. asp:lable) will be evaluated. You can still have multiple forms and access their values etc on the server as you would normally.
Paul Watson wrote:
It tries to turn a stateless system (HTTP) into a stateful one.
Well, I agree with you there but it has been a long time since I used a website that was stateful in nature. Almost every website I use these days knows my session, my setup, my configuration etc... all done via cookies. Cookies themselves are a way to get around the stateless nature of the web.
Paul Watson wrote:
ASP.NET tries to turn a web page into a WinForm. Buttons, events etc
It tries to do that but doesn't force you to. You an still use the normal method but then you are more or less coding static pages. Anyway. Go RoR! hehe :-)
Regards, Brian Dela :-)
Brian Delahunty wrote:
hat's not correct. It only allows one server-side form... i.e. a form in which ASP specific components (e.g. asp:lable) will be evaluated. You can still have multiple forms and access their values etc on the server as you would normally.
Without runat="server" you might as well not use ASP.NET on your page. So, a major suckage of ASP.NET is that it can only handle one server-side form on a page at time (I didn't think I had to be so specific with you lot :) .) Tons of ASP.NET stuff needs to be inside a form runat="server" for it to work AFAIR. If they dropped that limitation I'd be a lot happier with ASP.NET. As for the stateful arguement other frameworks handle it a lot better, they don't convolute what is a simple, straightforward pipeline (or tubes, wich horses can run down but casino chips block.) ASP.NET is WinForms for the web (they even named it WebForm) which at first glance is awesome but then starts to suck big time as you do real world systems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
Well, a couple of guys on our team have been working on this ASP (.Net 2.0) web site thing for the last nine months, and I was assigned some tasks to add some features and fix some bugs. I had not seen ANY of the code prior to last Thursday, so things are REAL bumpy because of that. I have no idea how most of this .NET crap works, or what assumptions I can safely make about how a .NET website works. After five days, I have to say I still don't really care for .NET. I haven't found a "gee whiz" reason that it's better than anything that came before. I've found a lot of ways we could make our code more maintainable, but yawn.....
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001Sadly you are right about ASP.NET. You managed to see through its gloss without having to go through hell fire. As for .NET itself, I like it and like C#. I just don't use it for websites (web-services are a different matter. ASP.NET works nicely there.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
And naturally, they gave you a 1 in return to restore the balance of the universe :-D
Ryan
"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"
I wear it with pride!
-
You cannot have multiple forms with runat="server" in an ASP.NET page. (That is, without stupid hacks, tricks and cludges.) -- modified at 13:26 Thursday 10th August, 2006
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
You do it with User controls. I don't consider that a hack. Either way, my point is that many folks don't like the restrictions they see, that is, nobody has ever forced them to write good code before. When suddenly forced into that restriction, it's a little disconcerting for sloppy web designers, but it teaches you to write good XHTML, which I don't think is a bad thing...
"Quality Software since 1983!" http://www.smoothjazzy.com/
-
Sadly you are right about ASP.NET. You managed to see through its gloss without having to go through hell fire. As for .NET itself, I like it and like C#. I just don't use it for websites (web-services are a different matter. ASP.NET works nicely there.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
What exactly do you not like about it? We've already established that your original complaints are only because of a lack of knowledge... what else is wrong with it? Is there anything better, and why do you think so?
"Quality Software since 1983!" http://www.smoothjazzy.com/
-
What exactly do you not like about it? We've already established that your original complaints are only because of a lack of knowledge... what else is wrong with it? Is there anything better, and why do you think so?
"Quality Software since 1983!" http://www.smoothjazzy.com/
Actually my knowledge is fine, if you read above you will see it is true that you cannot have multiple server-side forms in ASP.NET. That is a bad thing. It breaks conventional web practices.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
You do it with User controls. I don't consider that a hack. Either way, my point is that many folks don't like the restrictions they see, that is, nobody has ever forced them to write good code before. When suddenly forced into that restriction, it's a little disconcerting for sloppy web designers, but it teaches you to write good XHTML, which I don't think is a bad thing...
"Quality Software since 1983!" http://www.smoothjazzy.com/
You can't have another form runat="server" inside a user control.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
You don't have to spend five days handling crap to know it's crap...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You don't have to spend five days handling crap to know it's crap...
I don't?
:josh: My WPF Blog[^]
-
It's like sex, John. If you think it's boring then you're not doing it right.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
That'll become a quote in someone's sig for sure.
This statement is false.
-
What exactly do you not like about it? We've already established that your original complaints are only because of a lack of knowledge... what else is wrong with it? Is there anything better, and why do you think so?
"Quality Software since 1983!" http://www.smoothjazzy.com/
Your confusing Paul's post with John's post that started this thread.
This statement is false.
-
peterchen wrote:
(2) I wouldn't do it
Don't you want kids one day? Isn't your girlfriend frustrated? Oh. You meant quoting. Right... never mind.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
eh! :suss:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Christian Graus wrote:
ASP.NET is THE reason why .NET is killer, it's the one place where it provides an amazing platform in a world where all prior platforms absolutely blew chunks.
I used to think that but then realised how warped ASP.NETs view of the web is. I'd love to see many ASP.NET features but working within standard web conventions. Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
I'd love to see many ASP.NET features but working within standard web conventions. Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
But that is the whole point. The web model wasn't designed for the rich pages that we've all come to expect. Adding state via viewstate, and events, is sure a lot nicer than having an asp page full of hidden fields. That stuff sucked big time. I've worked on some reasonably large systems in ASP.NET and in asp. I know which one I prefer and which one was a total nightmare ( don't get me wrong, our systems worked and worked well, but you had to work hard to create anything remotely maintainable ).
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Paul Watson wrote:
I'd love to see many ASP.NET features but working within standard web conventions. Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
But that is the whole point. The web model wasn't designed for the rich pages that we've all come to expect. Adding state via viewstate, and events, is sure a lot nicer than having an asp page full of hidden fields. That stuff sucked big time. I've worked on some reasonably large systems in ASP.NET and in asp. I know which one I prefer and which one was a total nightmare ( don't get me wrong, our systems worked and worked well, but you had to work hard to create anything remotely maintainable ).
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
You are right in that that is the whole point of ASP.NET, WinForm for the web. I just happen to not like that view of the web. I went through ASP.NET, spent a good deal of time loving it and then falling out with it. It turns out I prefer a lighter approach to web frameworks. Something like Rails fits how I approach web dev a lot better than ASP.NET. I'm not going to try and convince you on this. It is a lot like SOAP vs. REST. I prefer REST while others prefer SOAP. It also does depend a lot on what you are doing on the web. A lot of intranet like apps are ideal for ASP.NET and I would even advise people to use ASP.NET for that kind of thing. There are things in ASP.NET that are categorically wrong (like only one server-side form per page) but a lot of it I just personally don't like. Thank good for technological diversity :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
-
You are right in that that is the whole point of ASP.NET, WinForm for the web. I just happen to not like that view of the web. I went through ASP.NET, spent a good deal of time loving it and then falling out with it. It turns out I prefer a lighter approach to web frameworks. Something like Rails fits how I approach web dev a lot better than ASP.NET. I'm not going to try and convince you on this. It is a lot like SOAP vs. REST. I prefer REST while others prefer SOAP. It also does depend a lot on what you are doing on the web. A lot of intranet like apps are ideal for ASP.NET and I would even advise people to use ASP.NET for that kind of thing. There are things in ASP.NET that are categorically wrong (like only one server-side form per page) but a lot of it I just personally don't like. Thank good for technological diversity :)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
A lot of intranet like apps are ideal for ASP.NET and I would even advise people to use ASP.NET for that kind of thing.
Yeah, the apps I have worked on almost certainly fall into this category.
Paul Watson wrote:
There are things in ASP.NET that are categorically wrong (like only one server-side form per page) but a lot of it I just personally don't like.
I guess the thing is, it is a new (ish) framework. A lot of stuff has gotten better in 2.0 ( being able to keep state between pages for example ).
Paul Watson wrote:
Thank good for technological diversity
Yes, indeedio.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Christian Graus wrote:
ASP.NET is THE reason why .NET is killer, it's the one place where it provides an amazing platform in a world where all prior platforms absolutely blew chunks.
I used to think that but then realised how warped ASP.NETs view of the web is. I'd love to see many ASP.NET features but working within standard web conventions. Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
Not trying to make the web like a WinForm.
Not to mention (I haven't used it lately), but it also has a lot of IE speicific stuff it spits out too. I like ASP.NET, but not WebForms, for that reason.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Brian Delahunty wrote:
hat's not correct. It only allows one server-side form... i.e. a form in which ASP specific components (e.g. asp:lable) will be evaluated. You can still have multiple forms and access their values etc on the server as you would normally.
Without runat="server" you might as well not use ASP.NET on your page. So, a major suckage of ASP.NET is that it can only handle one server-side form on a page at time (I didn't think I had to be so specific with you lot :) .) Tons of ASP.NET stuff needs to be inside a form runat="server" for it to work AFAIR. If they dropped that limitation I'd be a lot happier with ASP.NET. As for the stateful arguement other frameworks handle it a lot better, they don't convolute what is a simple, straightforward pipeline (or tubes, wich horses can run down but casino chips block.) ASP.NET is WinForms for the web (they even named it WebForm) which at first glance is awesome but then starts to suck big time as you do real world systems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Ok. I wasn't being all that serious considering I haven't done ASP.NET dev in a good while... was just yanking your chain... not in a dirty way...
Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
Sadly you are right about ASP.NET. You managed to see through its gloss without having to go through hell fire. As for .NET itself, I like it and like C#. I just don't use it for websites (web-services are a different matter. ASP.NET works nicely there.)
regards, Paul Watson Ireland FeedHenry needs you
eh, stop bugging me about it, give it a couple of days, see what happens.
Paul Watson wrote:
(web-services are a different matter. ASP.NET works nicely there.)
Damn right... they are basically C# classes with an attribute or two slapped on here and there. Pure simplicity. And to be ultra safe, write the WSDL contract first and then generate the implementation C# stub. Nice.. Yum... I'm hungry.. Ok, I'm gone insane... Paul, hit me in work tomorrow. Cheers. I need sleep!!! SLEEEEEEP!
Regards, Brian Dela :-)