How to tell your lead developer has never used MVC
-
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
What they mean by simplicity is likely familiarity. I've seen plenty of senior level developers and architects who are scared of "new" technologies.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
Fire his ass for being incompetent
Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart
-
To be fair, maybe he just heard/read it wrong, and thought you said MFC... It's Monday, after all...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
My client, also a developer, is still thinking of switching, days from rollout, back to web forms, because it's simpler. And it has a design view. :((
-
What they mean by simplicity is likely familiarity. I've seen plenty of senior level developers and architects who are scared of "new" technologies.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
A little of this, a little of that. :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Fire his ass for being incompetent
Sincerely Yours, Brian Hart
Sorry, Brian, but when someone defines incompetency with not sharing his preferences, then I would gladly leave. I would rather stand at a grill and flip burgers than bow before someone who threatens to fire me at every minor issue. Now I'm scared. I'm beginning to sound like JSOP :)
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
I think your boss probably meant ASP.NET Web Forms. Calling Web Forms "ASP.NET" is imprecise, but not horribly so. As for whether or not using Web Forms is justified (versus using ASP.NET MVC or some third option), I think it's probably a defensible choice in most cases. Even Scott Guthrie doesn't advocate ASP.NET MVC for everything. Also, as someone who's led teams, I can tell you that one of the most challenging parts is synthesizing everyone's suggestions into an architectural mix that works for all stakeholders. We can't use Rational Rose, XP, and everyone's favorite ORM tool on the very next project... technical correctness aside, it just doesn't work from a human factors standpoint.
-
My client, also a developer, is still thinking of switching, days from rollout, back to web forms, because it's simpler. And it has a design view. :((
It does amaze me that any new-and-improved technology would lack a design view. It seems as if we've taken a step back in this respect, compared to the original 4GL tools like VB5, Gupta SqlWindows, etcetera. I understand that these designers were based on absolute positioning, which is unacceptable in many realms today. But there has to be some acknowledgment that visual design tools are superior to manual markup-typing (speaking in the most general sense possible). To deny this is irrational.
-
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
I'm a lead developer and I have never and will never use MVC, then again I also refuse to do ASP.net. I no longer have the inclination to get involved with every tech MS brings out, I'll stick to Silverlight for the rest of this decade me thinks.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
EEK! I'm actually having troubles of this sort as well. So far I'm taking a stance that we should 'leave the poor servers alone' and use more of the client side controls (like jquery UI) and javascript, that along with the argument that we can still use 'classic' ASP.Net controls where it makes sense. Its working a little bit and we are transitioning in that direction. I don't know when/if we'll actually get to fully using MVC though. :rolleyes: I keep arguing the 'patterns and practices' bit along with the 'maintainability' argument. I think they are getting sick of my ranting and raving though. :wtf:
-
It does amaze me that any new-and-improved technology would lack a design view. It seems as if we've taken a step back in this respect, compared to the original 4GL tools like VB5, Gupta SqlWindows, etcetera. I understand that these designers were based on absolute positioning, which is unacceptable in many realms today. But there has to be some acknowledgment that visual design tools are superior to manual markup-typing (speaking in the most general sense possible). To deny this is irrational.
I think MS played the 'minimum well done' card here, and concentrated on getting the MVC framework working instead of looking shiny. Then, also, for any real business scale web sites, laying out each view by hand is simply not practical. Using code templates, runtime scaffolding, and layout views wisely, it's dead easy to concentrate all manual layout and design work into very few key points, where this can pretty nicely be accomplished using your favourite web design tool. MS do have what looks to be fairly nice with Expression Web.
-
EEK! I'm actually having troubles of this sort as well. So far I'm taking a stance that we should 'leave the poor servers alone' and use more of the client side controls (like jquery UI) and javascript, that along with the argument that we can still use 'classic' ASP.Net controls where it makes sense. Its working a little bit and we are transitioning in that direction. I don't know when/if we'll actually get to fully using MVC though. :rolleyes: I keep arguing the 'patterns and practices' bit along with the 'maintainability' argument. I think they are getting sick of my ranting and raving though. :wtf:
I find using custom client side coding several orders of magnitude easier with MVC than with the classic viewstate-and-client script juggernaut. HTML rendered by MVC before custom Ajax enhancement is beautifully void of any obtrusive JavaScript.
-
I find using custom client side coding several orders of magnitude easier with MVC than with the classic viewstate-and-client script juggernaut. HTML rendered by MVC before custom Ajax enhancement is beautifully void of any obtrusive JavaScript.
Sounds good! I agree that the viewstate thing is just confusing. By "custom client side coding" do you 'roll-your-own' or are there any libs or frameworks that you recommend? EDIT - I suppose this is a programming question! Answer at your leisure of course, I was just thinking it would add to the discussion.
-
Sounds good! I agree that the viewstate thing is just confusing. By "custom client side coding" do you 'roll-your-own' or are there any libs or frameworks that you recommend? EDIT - I suppose this is a programming question! Answer at your leisure of course, I was just thinking it would add to the discussion.
By custom I mean not using third party 'ajax widgets' (essentially controls, but that suggests postbacks and viewstate and is a dirty word), but manually coding ajax points. MVC has ajax actions et al, which request and refresh only a small page portion, but I hardly even use those and just use a jQuery.ajax call. The transparency is what makes it all so much easier.
-
By custom I mean not using third party 'ajax widgets' (essentially controls, but that suggests postbacks and viewstate and is a dirty word), but manually coding ajax points. MVC has ajax actions et al, which request and refresh only a small page portion, but I hardly even use those and just use a jQuery.ajax call. The transparency is what makes it all so much easier.
Ok, now I think I understand you. Yes, I think we are doing ourselves a dis-service by hiding the post-backs and updates behind the ajax and viewstate stuff. In the end it becomes incredibly difficult to discover the order in which things are happening. Who even has time to delve into how the viewstate works anyway? It might as well be magic to me, and I'd much rather manage state using a more naive and transparent approach.
-
Can we use MVC for this? "I think we should stick to ASP.NET for simplicity. It's a bit more standard." :((
You pansy tulip bed wetters use MVC? Crap, I use assembly for web development! :-D
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
-
It does amaze me that any new-and-improved technology would lack a design view. It seems as if we've taken a step back in this respect, compared to the original 4GL tools like VB5, Gupta SqlWindows, etcetera. I understand that these designers were based on absolute positioning, which is unacceptable in many realms today. But there has to be some acknowledgment that visual design tools are superior to manual markup-typing (speaking in the most general sense possible). To deny this is irrational.
This is the one place where MVC falls down. Mind you, no visual designer is still better than the godawful constructions the WebForms designer produces, in terms of professional output (let's just skip over the fact that half the controls don't even work in most browsers!). It is very surprising that MVC was released without any form of 'noddy mode' to encourage adoption, though.
-
EEK! I'm actually having troubles of this sort as well. So far I'm taking a stance that we should 'leave the poor servers alone' and use more of the client side controls (like jquery UI) and javascript, that along with the argument that we can still use 'classic' ASP.Net controls where it makes sense. Its working a little bit and we are transitioning in that direction. I don't know when/if we'll actually get to fully using MVC though. :rolleyes: I keep arguing the 'patterns and practices' bit along with the 'maintainability' argument. I think they are getting sick of my ranting and raving though. :wtf:
