I have come to a realization about ASP.NET
-
I don't like it anymore! It almost makes me cry admitting it. I have been a full-time ASP.NET programmer for like 4 years now. I like doing the DAL and BLL. But when it's time for the UI. Gosh...I have fallen out of love. You see, at first I absolutely did love it. It lured me into it's cave. Tantalized me with great demos, videos, and articles. I felt like I could build everything with it. It was so easy. "Hey Mr. Programmer.", I said to myself, "This is just like native GUI development - but for the web. It just works.". Just as kids grow up to learn that the world can be a big nasty place, I grew up (as a programmer) and learned that the web really isn't the place for Winforms programming. I can now see, that the idea of putting WindowForms to the web, and calling it WebForms, was such a bad decision, that I almost think that the designers behind ASP.NET were desktop developers and not web developers. You just can't hide the true nature of the web. And trying to do so leads to an architecture that's so convoluted that ASP.NET programming is like walking through a labyrinth, finding the one way out that will make your page work as you want to. I spend too much time worrying about the intricacies of the post back/WebForms model. As someone wrote somewhere, ASP.NET's WebForms and post back model is "The ultimate 'Square Peg - Round Hole' situation." Yes it is easy when you start out with ASP.NET. But whenever you want to do anything mildly complex it quickly becomes a nightmare because of the convoluted and complex architecture that really just doesn't fit the net. ASP.NET contains so much plumbing trying to make WebForms programming seem like WindowForms programming, that I doubt it's worth it. Stop trying to dress up the cow. A cow is a cow is a cow. And a cow isn't a bad thing. There's one redeeming feature of ASP.NET though. I can use C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far). If Java is the Sun, then C# is a Gamma-burst. Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Randi prefer this concept to the gigantic classic asp web apps with includes up the you know what chasing around a bunch of code scattered to hell in file names like "writeForm.asp" and variable names like "strFirstName" "bolLame"
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
-
i prefer this concept to the gigantic classic asp web apps with includes up the you know what chasing around a bunch of code scattered to hell in file names like "writeForm.asp" and variable names like "strFirstName" "bolLame"
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
Agreed. Classic ASP, and VB Script, was (is) awful.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
There's nothing stopping you from writing Web apps with a C# back end but being minimalist on the ASP.Net front (i.e. use native HTML controls, write your own javascript, etc.) I am always horrified at the bloat ASP.Net creates - but hey - it's faster to develop simple stuff, and bandwidth is generall improving - so it's the same argumnt that happens on he desktop - why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs? Speaking as somone who (pre .Net) developed an ISAPI back-end which gave traditional ASP pages at least some of the advantages of ASP.NET, while remaining bandwidth concious, I sort-of look back on those days with rose-tinted specs - but I also used to write Assembler functions, to increase client-code size and efficiency in non Web apps, and while proud of being able to write fast, efficient code, the business model just isn't sustainable now.
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
maxxx# wrote:
There's nothing stopping you from writing Web apps with a C# back end but being minimalist on the ASP.Net front (i.e. use native HTML controls, write your own javascript, etc.)
And that's where my mind is at the moment. Is that the way to go? Well, it's worth at try.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
i prefer this concept to the gigantic classic asp web apps with includes up the you know what chasing around a bunch of code scattered to hell in file names like "writeForm.asp" and variable names like "strFirstName" "bolLame"
----------------------------------------------------------- "When I first saw it, I just thought that you really, really enjoyed programming in java." - Leslie Sanford
While I agree that classic ASP was quite awful, it was still possible to create relatively-easy to maintain websites with it. The problem is that you just have to remember ALL the details about your site, and which file/include is responsible for what, etc etc., or you would quickly start re-inventing functions, include'ing files that you dont need to, and then writing workarounds for your own mistakes. Then again, its just the same with just about every other language, for web and otherwise...
"impossible" is just an opinion.
-
I don't like it anymore! It almost makes me cry admitting it. I have been a full-time ASP.NET programmer for like 4 years now. I like doing the DAL and BLL. But when it's time for the UI. Gosh...I have fallen out of love. You see, at first I absolutely did love it. It lured me into it's cave. Tantalized me with great demos, videos, and articles. I felt like I could build everything with it. It was so easy. "Hey Mr. Programmer.", I said to myself, "This is just like native GUI development - but for the web. It just works.". Just as kids grow up to learn that the world can be a big nasty place, I grew up (as a programmer) and learned that the web really isn't the place for Winforms programming. I can now see, that the idea of putting WindowForms to the web, and calling it WebForms, was such a bad decision, that I almost think that the designers behind ASP.NET were desktop developers and not web developers. You just can't hide the true nature of the web. And trying to do so leads to an architecture that's so convoluted that ASP.NET programming is like walking through a labyrinth, finding the one way out that will make your page work as you want to. I spend too much time worrying about the intricacies of the post back/WebForms model. As someone wrote somewhere, ASP.NET's WebForms and post back model is "The ultimate 'Square Peg - Round Hole' situation." Yes it is easy when you start out with ASP.NET. But whenever you want to do anything mildly complex it quickly becomes a nightmare because of the convoluted and complex architecture that really just doesn't fit the net. ASP.NET contains so much plumbing trying to make WebForms programming seem like WindowForms programming, that I doubt it's worth it. Stop trying to dress up the cow. A cow is a cow is a cow. And a cow isn't a bad thing. There's one redeeming feature of ASP.NET though. I can use C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far). If Java is the Sun, then C# is a Gamma-burst. Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandYea, it looks like MVC might be the ASP.NET architecture you'd prefer. In defense of the postback model, I'd say that server-based databinding and the automatic restoration of state on postbacks are very cool things. It really only gets complicated when you start writing your own server controls (which may be where you are :-) But that all said, from what I've seen so far, I think there is something very attractive in the clean elegance that MVC offers by comparison.
-
I don't like it anymore! It almost makes me cry admitting it. I have been a full-time ASP.NET programmer for like 4 years now. I like doing the DAL and BLL. But when it's time for the UI. Gosh...I have fallen out of love. You see, at first I absolutely did love it. It lured me into it's cave. Tantalized me with great demos, videos, and articles. I felt like I could build everything with it. It was so easy. "Hey Mr. Programmer.", I said to myself, "This is just like native GUI development - but for the web. It just works.". Just as kids grow up to learn that the world can be a big nasty place, I grew up (as a programmer) and learned that the web really isn't the place for Winforms programming. I can now see, that the idea of putting WindowForms to the web, and calling it WebForms, was such a bad decision, that I almost think that the designers behind ASP.NET were desktop developers and not web developers. You just can't hide the true nature of the web. And trying to do so leads to an architecture that's so convoluted that ASP.NET programming is like walking through a labyrinth, finding the one way out that will make your page work as you want to. I spend too much time worrying about the intricacies of the post back/WebForms model. As someone wrote somewhere, ASP.NET's WebForms and post back model is "The ultimate 'Square Peg - Round Hole' situation." Yes it is easy when you start out with ASP.NET. But whenever you want to do anything mildly complex it quickly becomes a nightmare because of the convoluted and complex architecture that really just doesn't fit the net. ASP.NET contains so much plumbing trying to make WebForms programming seem like WindowForms programming, that I doubt it's worth it. Stop trying to dress up the cow. A cow is a cow is a cow. And a cow isn't a bad thing. There's one redeeming feature of ASP.NET though. I can use C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far). If Java is the Sun, then C# is a Gamma-burst. Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
There's nothing stopping you from writing Web apps with a C# back end but being minimalist on the ASP.Net front (i.e. use native HTML controls, write your own javascript, etc.) I am always horrified at the bloat ASP.Net creates - but hey - it's faster to develop simple stuff, and bandwidth is generall improving - so it's the same argumnt that happens on he desktop - why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs? Speaking as somone who (pre .Net) developed an ISAPI back-end which gave traditional ASP pages at least some of the advantages of ASP.NET, while remaining bandwidth concious, I sort-of look back on those days with rose-tinted specs - but I also used to write Assembler functions, to increase client-code size and efficiency in non Web apps, and while proud of being able to write fast, efficient code, the business model just isn't sustainable now.
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
maxxx# wrote:
why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs?
That's an amazingly stupid statement. I bet you don't comment your code either because that "business model isn't sustainable".
"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, 10/26/2001 -
maxxx# wrote:
why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs?
That's an amazingly stupid statement. I bet you don't comment your code either because that "business model isn't sustainable".
"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:
maxxx# wrote: why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs? That's an amazingly stupid statement.
I really have to disagree with you on this point. If the cost to a company is 10 days developer time to improve the efficiency of the code when new computers or upgrade can be purchased for less then the cost of that then it makes sense not to spend money on the efficient code. Plus if it's time critical to the company it may be more worth while to the company to invest in better hardware so the job can get done quicker and the application will be out there
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
maxxx# wrote: why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs? That's an amazingly stupid statement.
I really have to disagree with you on this point. If the cost to a company is 10 days developer time to improve the efficiency of the code when new computers or upgrade can be purchased for less then the cost of that then it makes sense not to spend money on the efficient code. Plus if it's time critical to the company it may be more worth while to the company to invest in better hardware so the job can get done quicker and the application will be out there
hopingToCode wrote:
I really have to disagree with you on this point.
The you're equally as stupid.
hopingToCode wrote:
If the cost to a company is 10 days developer time to improve the efficiency of the code
Optimizing code that works is as stupid as not writing comments. Beyond that, maxxx said "developing" small-footprint efficient code (not making code more efficient). That's the way I always work. Just because your customer can buy better hardware to make up for sloppy coding, doesn't men he should have to. Telling your customer that he has to buy better hardware to make your software work never goes over well - just ask Microsoft. At first, it might look like a cost-cutting measure to write bloated crappy code that "works", but down the road, when it's time to change/maintain that code, you'll pay the price in higher salaries (programmers never get cheaper). If you want to code like that, you'll never find yourself work with or for me. Oh yeah - one more thing. Despite what management promises, they'll never let you go back and "make the code better". Once you realize that, you'll start acting like a real programmer, and you'll write the best code you possibly can up front, including the use of copious comments.
"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, 10/26/2001 -
hopingToCode wrote:
I really have to disagree with you on this point.
The you're equally as stupid.
hopingToCode wrote:
If the cost to a company is 10 days developer time to improve the efficiency of the code
Optimizing code that works is as stupid as not writing comments. Beyond that, maxxx said "developing" small-footprint efficient code (not making code more efficient). That's the way I always work. Just because your customer can buy better hardware to make up for sloppy coding, doesn't men he should have to. Telling your customer that he has to buy better hardware to make your software work never goes over well - just ask Microsoft. At first, it might look like a cost-cutting measure to write bloated crappy code that "works", but down the road, when it's time to change/maintain that code, you'll pay the price in higher salaries (programmers never get cheaper). If you want to code like that, you'll never find yourself work with or for me. Oh yeah - one more thing. Despite what management promises, they'll never let you go back and "make the code better". Once you realize that, you'll start acting like a real programmer, and you'll write the best code you possibly can up front, including the use of copious comments.
"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:
The you're equally as stupid.
I don't mind engaging in conversation but name calling is a little but low. to quote your profile "act like a professional" and explain your point of view.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Optimizing code that works is as stupid as not writing comments
You should always write the best code you can up front. However the first cut isn't always the most optimised and you need to re work it before release while in that part of the code. Write it once, then once it's working and before you move on look at the code to make it work better and quicker. However make sure that it still works!
-
I don't like it anymore! It almost makes me cry admitting it. I have been a full-time ASP.NET programmer for like 4 years now. I like doing the DAL and BLL. But when it's time for the UI. Gosh...I have fallen out of love. You see, at first I absolutely did love it. It lured me into it's cave. Tantalized me with great demos, videos, and articles. I felt like I could build everything with it. It was so easy. "Hey Mr. Programmer.", I said to myself, "This is just like native GUI development - but for the web. It just works.". Just as kids grow up to learn that the world can be a big nasty place, I grew up (as a programmer) and learned that the web really isn't the place for Winforms programming. I can now see, that the idea of putting WindowForms to the web, and calling it WebForms, was such a bad decision, that I almost think that the designers behind ASP.NET were desktop developers and not web developers. You just can't hide the true nature of the web. And trying to do so leads to an architecture that's so convoluted that ASP.NET programming is like walking through a labyrinth, finding the one way out that will make your page work as you want to. I spend too much time worrying about the intricacies of the post back/WebForms model. As someone wrote somewhere, ASP.NET's WebForms and post back model is "The ultimate 'Square Peg - Round Hole' situation." Yes it is easy when you start out with ASP.NET. But whenever you want to do anything mildly complex it quickly becomes a nightmare because of the convoluted and complex architecture that really just doesn't fit the net. ASP.NET contains so much plumbing trying to make WebForms programming seem like WindowForms programming, that I doubt it's worth it. Stop trying to dress up the cow. A cow is a cow is a cow. And a cow isn't a bad thing. There's one redeeming feature of ASP.NET though. I can use C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far). If Java is the Sun, then C# is a Gamma-burst. Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
Nah - give yourself a complete change and use something like Python + CherryPy + Genshi ( + SqlAlchemy or similar if you want database access).
Rohde wrote:
C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far)
Hmmm - Linq, lambdas and anonymous delegates give it some some nice features, it has the BCL to give it vast library support, but there are other languages I'd much rather use (Haskell for lazyness, strong data types, type inferencing and other crazy-wonderful functional programming-ness, Python for general and web programming). But then, I've strayed from the Microsoft flock since the advent of .NET :-)
-
Rohde wrote:
Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
Nah - give yourself a complete change and use something like Python + CherryPy + Genshi ( + SqlAlchemy or similar if you want database access).
Rohde wrote:
C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far)
Hmmm - Linq, lambdas and anonymous delegates give it some some nice features, it has the BCL to give it vast library support, but there are other languages I'd much rather use (Haskell for lazyness, strong data types, type inferencing and other crazy-wonderful functional programming-ness, Python for general and web programming). But then, I've strayed from the Microsoft flock since the advent of .NET :-)
Yeah sometime I´d like to see how Python is for web programming. But since .NET is what I know (and love...except for ASP.NET) I need a really good reason for changing technologies.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Yeah sometime I´d like to see how Python is for web programming. But since .NET is what I know (and love...except for ASP.NET) I need a really good reason for changing technologies.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
Yeah sometime I´d like to see how Python is for web programming. But since .NET is what I know (and love...except for ASP.NET) I need a really good reason for changing technologies.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
I need a really good reason for changing technologies.
I found it when I was implementing Trac and Subversion servers for my team - I wanted to do web apps to do management of SVN repositories and Trac projects. Subversion has good Python bindings, while Trac is written in Python, so it seemed logical to do the web-apps in Python...which is how it turned out! I used Python+Genshi on top of the mod_python for the SVN management app - that uses a single 'handler' function that is registered with mod_python, in which you can dispatch requests. Genshi provides a templating language, kind of like ASP. Of course, there's lashings of DHTML and CSS tied together with Javascript (mostly thanks to jQuery) to give some client-side loveliness. The Trac app uses Python+CherryPy+Genshi - CherryPy provides a higher level abstraction over the web server, making it simpler to write well decomposed apps. The step after that? There's several alternatives - a fully-fledged web framework, like Django, Turbogears or Pylons, or layering extra features on top of what I'm already comfortable with (which, to be honest, is the way that Turbogears and Pylons are made up).
-
maxxx# wrote:
why spend time and money developing small-footprint, efficient code, when your users can just go out and buy bigger faster PCs?
That's an amazingly stupid statement. I bet you don't comment your code either because that "business model isn't sustainable".
"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, 10/26/2001Hmm? Oh - sorry - I had the Sarcasm key pressed. :) But that used to be the mantra at an IBM VAR I worked at many years ago - they made more money writing inefficient code as the customers had to buy bigger machines to run it on. And I currently work for somewhere where a comment is a rare and wonderous beauty (except in my own code) e.g. // Add one to i i++; Marvelous
Take a chill pill, Daddy-o .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
hopingToCode wrote:
I really have to disagree with you on this point.
The you're equally as stupid.
hopingToCode wrote:
If the cost to a company is 10 days developer time to improve the efficiency of the code
Optimizing code that works is as stupid as not writing comments. Beyond that, maxxx said "developing" small-footprint efficient code (not making code more efficient). That's the way I always work. Just because your customer can buy better hardware to make up for sloppy coding, doesn't men he should have to. Telling your customer that he has to buy better hardware to make your software work never goes over well - just ask Microsoft. At first, it might look like a cost-cutting measure to write bloated crappy code that "works", but down the road, when it's time to change/maintain that code, you'll pay the price in higher salaries (programmers never get cheaper). If you want to code like that, you'll never find yourself work with or for me. Oh yeah - one more thing. Despite what management promises, they'll never let you go back and "make the code better". Once you realize that, you'll start acting like a real programmer, and you'll write the best code you possibly can up front, including the use of copious comments.
"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:
Optimizing code that works is as stupid as not writing comments.
Depends on your definition of 'works'. If a prog to calcualte Pi to a million decimal places works (i.e. produces teh reequired output), but takes three hundred years to run, then optimising would seem like a good idea to me.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
your customer can buy better hardware to make up for sloppy coding
There is a difference between 'sloppy' and 'inefficient'. Indeed, I have seen some very efficient but sloppy code, and very inefficient but 'beautiful' code. (and well commented to boot).
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
just ask Microsoft.
Who seem to have a quite succesful business despite producing very resource-hungry software?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
If you want to code like that, you'll never find yourself work with or for me.
Well, if your rudeness is anything to go by, I'm quite glad about that!
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Oh yeah - one more thing. Despite what management promises, they'll never let you go back and "make the code better". Once you realize that, you'll start acting like a real programmer, and you'll write the best code you possibly can up front, including the use of copious comments.
My experience agrees with you here 100% However, the overall argument about my original (and meant to be sarcastic) comment is really futile. There are too many variables. How many times have you seen questions from programmers about 'which method is more efficient, x or y' when, in the real world, the difference would be minimal. A real example - using stringbuilder v using strings. It may be more efficient in a certain case to use stringbuilder than using simple += on a couple of strings. But when it is at the Gui, and not being executed millions of times, the saving is negligable. The time taken to even ask the question has probably exceeded the lifetime time savings of using one method over the other. So efficientcy isn't everything - and neither is commening. Both are a part of an overall toolset used by good developers. Writing reasonably efficient code (to suit the requirements) Commenting sufficiently that
-
I don't like it anymore! It almost makes me cry admitting it. I have been a full-time ASP.NET programmer for like 4 years now. I like doing the DAL and BLL. But when it's time for the UI. Gosh...I have fallen out of love. You see, at first I absolutely did love it. It lured me into it's cave. Tantalized me with great demos, videos, and articles. I felt like I could build everything with it. It was so easy. "Hey Mr. Programmer.", I said to myself, "This is just like native GUI development - but for the web. It just works.". Just as kids grow up to learn that the world can be a big nasty place, I grew up (as a programmer) and learned that the web really isn't the place for Winforms programming. I can now see, that the idea of putting WindowForms to the web, and calling it WebForms, was such a bad decision, that I almost think that the designers behind ASP.NET were desktop developers and not web developers. You just can't hide the true nature of the web. And trying to do so leads to an architecture that's so convoluted that ASP.NET programming is like walking through a labyrinth, finding the one way out that will make your page work as you want to. I spend too much time worrying about the intricacies of the post back/WebForms model. As someone wrote somewhere, ASP.NET's WebForms and post back model is "The ultimate 'Square Peg - Round Hole' situation." Yes it is easy when you start out with ASP.NET. But whenever you want to do anything mildly complex it quickly becomes a nightmare because of the convoluted and complex architecture that really just doesn't fit the net. ASP.NET contains so much plumbing trying to make WebForms programming seem like WindowForms programming, that I doubt it's worth it. Stop trying to dress up the cow. A cow is a cow is a cow. And a cow isn't a bad thing. There's one redeeming feature of ASP.NET though. I can use C#, which is probably one of the best languages ever developed (so far). If Java is the Sun, then C# is a Gamma-burst. Perhaps I should consider ASP.NET MVC for the next project.
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandRohde wrote:
You just can't hide the true nature of the web.
Bang on. ASP.NET seemed like a good idea but trying to put a desktop app. model on the web is not a good long-term idea. I haven't tried any ASP.NET MVC implementations but I use Ruby on Rails now and like it. If ASP.NET MVC still tries to do server-side on_click handlers though then it is as doomed as "normal" ASP.NET.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Rohde wrote:
You just can't hide the true nature of the web.
Bang on. ASP.NET seemed like a good idea but trying to put a desktop app. model on the web is not a good long-term idea. I haven't tried any ASP.NET MVC implementations but I use Ruby on Rails now and like it. If ASP.NET MVC still tries to do server-side on_click handlers though then it is as doomed as "normal" ASP.NET.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
So, I assume you started with ASP.NET? Was it a big change to shift programming paradigm?
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand -
So, I assume you started with ASP.NET? Was it a big change to shift programming paradigm?
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, `Who is destroying the world?' You are."
-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn RandNo, I started web-dev with ASP. ASP to ASP.NET was a big shift and at first I thought it was a good one.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
