ASP.NET vs. Old School [modified]
-
Ok, I need some help from the CP community. My place of work has some old school developers who are very proficient at building websites with classic ASP and VB COM+. Different departments at work have been working with ASP.NET and C# for a while now, however, some of those old school developers are still of the opinion that: - ASP.NET (controls, user controls, etc.) are bloated - under the hood, ASP.NET is merely concatenating HTML strings to write to the browser anyway - implementing our own engine that "writes" simple HTML to the browser is bound to perform better than the ASP.NET controls (less bloat, etc.) - using C# to write HTML strings to the browser is a good step upward, because it gets us away from vbscript and COM DLL hell I would like to build an argument for the contrary, but I am certainly willing to hear comments from both sides of the fence. A few arguments that I can think of off the top of my head might be: - ASP.NET is fine for so many other enterprise level sites, why are we special? - how maintainable would the codebase be if we are writing out HTML strings? - user controls are not perfect for use everywhere, but they definitely do have some advantages (code maintainability) - how long would it take to get a newly hired ASP.NET developer "up to speed" with our methods if we implement our own thing? - if the only real thing you are going to change about the development infrastructure is the language to C#, then is there really any point? I'm looking for thoughts and opinions. I don't want to be a MS evangelist, but given the options we are comparing, it seems clear to me that true, typical ASP.NET development is the way to go, but I'd appreciate hearing some additional arguments. Thanks. [EDIT] I would like to clarify that while the methods they plan to use are not adopting typical ASP.NET, they are also not proposing the other extreme of a C# page full of Response.Write commands. They would make use of some proper classes/objects to support the creation of HTML strings in a more structured way than true vbscript. In the end, it would probably wind up being a hybrid of decent C# OOP and vbscript style "string writing". -- modified at 17:04 Tuesday 5th December, 2006
-
Ok, I need some help from the CP community. My place of work has some old school developers who are very proficient at building websites with classic ASP and VB COM+. Different departments at work have been working with ASP.NET and C# for a while now, however, some of those old school developers are still of the opinion that: - ASP.NET (controls, user controls, etc.) are bloated - under the hood, ASP.NET is merely concatenating HTML strings to write to the browser anyway - implementing our own engine that "writes" simple HTML to the browser is bound to perform better than the ASP.NET controls (less bloat, etc.) - using C# to write HTML strings to the browser is a good step upward, because it gets us away from vbscript and COM DLL hell I would like to build an argument for the contrary, but I am certainly willing to hear comments from both sides of the fence. A few arguments that I can think of off the top of my head might be: - ASP.NET is fine for so many other enterprise level sites, why are we special? - how maintainable would the codebase be if we are writing out HTML strings? - user controls are not perfect for use everywhere, but they definitely do have some advantages (code maintainability) - how long would it take to get a newly hired ASP.NET developer "up to speed" with our methods if we implement our own thing? - if the only real thing you are going to change about the development infrastructure is the language to C#, then is there really any point? I'm looking for thoughts and opinions. I don't want to be a MS evangelist, but given the options we are comparing, it seems clear to me that true, typical ASP.NET development is the way to go, but I'd appreciate hearing some additional arguments. Thanks. [EDIT] I would like to clarify that while the methods they plan to use are not adopting typical ASP.NET, they are also not proposing the other extreme of a C# page full of Response.Write commands. They would make use of some proper classes/objects to support the creation of HTML strings in a more structured way than true vbscript. In the end, it would probably wind up being a hybrid of decent C# OOP and vbscript style "string writing". -- modified at 17:04 Tuesday 5th December, 2006
The people arguing with you are clueless. ASP.Net makes life easier for them. It is 10X easier to use then classic ASP. ASP.Net 2.0 performs much better then classic ASP so WTF are they talking about? The only issue I could see is that perhaps ASP.Net produces slightly more HTML which could affect dial up users. But who the hell uses dial up anymore? Not too mention Master pages, Themes, the Object Data Source control in 2.0. While I agree 1.1 was just OK, 2.0 is simply amazing. They're smokin crack if they'd rather write classic asp and vb script. In a few years they won't have any marketable skills? Do they want to be Dinosaurs stuck working with old technology? I don't get that one bit. Seriously, go to msdn and research the objectDataSource control and master pages. They make life so much easier.
-
Ok, I need some help from the CP community. My place of work has some old school developers who are very proficient at building websites with classic ASP and VB COM+. Different departments at work have been working with ASP.NET and C# for a while now, however, some of those old school developers are still of the opinion that: - ASP.NET (controls, user controls, etc.) are bloated - under the hood, ASP.NET is merely concatenating HTML strings to write to the browser anyway - implementing our own engine that "writes" simple HTML to the browser is bound to perform better than the ASP.NET controls (less bloat, etc.) - using C# to write HTML strings to the browser is a good step upward, because it gets us away from vbscript and COM DLL hell I would like to build an argument for the contrary, but I am certainly willing to hear comments from both sides of the fence. A few arguments that I can think of off the top of my head might be: - ASP.NET is fine for so many other enterprise level sites, why are we special? - how maintainable would the codebase be if we are writing out HTML strings? - user controls are not perfect for use everywhere, but they definitely do have some advantages (code maintainability) - how long would it take to get a newly hired ASP.NET developer "up to speed" with our methods if we implement our own thing? - if the only real thing you are going to change about the development infrastructure is the language to C#, then is there really any point? I'm looking for thoughts and opinions. I don't want to be a MS evangelist, but given the options we are comparing, it seems clear to me that true, typical ASP.NET development is the way to go, but I'd appreciate hearing some additional arguments. Thanks. [EDIT] I would like to clarify that while the methods they plan to use are not adopting typical ASP.NET, they are also not proposing the other extreme of a C# page full of Response.Write commands. They would make use of some proper classes/objects to support the creation of HTML strings in a more structured way than true vbscript. In the end, it would probably wind up being a hybrid of decent C# OOP and vbscript style "string writing". -- modified at 17:04 Tuesday 5th December, 2006
yeah, in the end you're just writing HTML strings , or talking to some SQL thing somewhere, or drawing reports (just like every other app in the universe) but what's wrong with wanting to make that job as painless as possible ? IMO, anyone who thinks classic ASP is better in any way than ASP.Net simply hasn't done anything big in ASP.Net. and C# is such a superior language to VBScript, it's like night and day. bloat, "just writing strings", "perform better" - all sounds like things people would say when they're trying to avoid learning something new...IMO :)
-
Ok, I need some help from the CP community. My place of work has some old school developers who are very proficient at building websites with classic ASP and VB COM+. Different departments at work have been working with ASP.NET and C# for a while now, however, some of those old school developers are still of the opinion that: - ASP.NET (controls, user controls, etc.) are bloated - under the hood, ASP.NET is merely concatenating HTML strings to write to the browser anyway - implementing our own engine that "writes" simple HTML to the browser is bound to perform better than the ASP.NET controls (less bloat, etc.) - using C# to write HTML strings to the browser is a good step upward, because it gets us away from vbscript and COM DLL hell I would like to build an argument for the contrary, but I am certainly willing to hear comments from both sides of the fence. A few arguments that I can think of off the top of my head might be: - ASP.NET is fine for so many other enterprise level sites, why are we special? - how maintainable would the codebase be if we are writing out HTML strings? - user controls are not perfect for use everywhere, but they definitely do have some advantages (code maintainability) - how long would it take to get a newly hired ASP.NET developer "up to speed" with our methods if we implement our own thing? - if the only real thing you are going to change about the development infrastructure is the language to C#, then is there really any point? I'm looking for thoughts and opinions. I don't want to be a MS evangelist, but given the options we are comparing, it seems clear to me that true, typical ASP.NET development is the way to go, but I'd appreciate hearing some additional arguments. Thanks. [EDIT] I would like to clarify that while the methods they plan to use are not adopting typical ASP.NET, they are also not proposing the other extreme of a C# page full of Response.Write commands. They would make use of some proper classes/objects to support the creation of HTML strings in a more structured way than true vbscript. In the end, it would probably wind up being a hybrid of decent C# OOP and vbscript style "string writing". -- modified at 17:04 Tuesday 5th December, 2006
I am 54 but I am not Old School. I made the transition when 1.0 came out. This transition was easy since I used to use InterDev and VB Web Classes. I found writing ASP code easy but a maintenance nightmare, especially when the program is adopted by other sites. ASP.NET is much easilier to maintain and deploy. ASP has pseudo OOP. ASP.NET embraces OOP and GOF design patterns. Also, you can create Web Services and Window Services in .NET to facilitate access to modern and legacy resouces. I wrote a SPC ASP.NET Application that included some real-time data collection using C++/CLI and C#. So, what you can do with ASP.NET and .NET goes beyond creating reports and data entry programs.
-
Ok, I need some help from the CP community. My place of work has some old school developers who are very proficient at building websites with classic ASP and VB COM+. Different departments at work have been working with ASP.NET and C# for a while now, however, some of those old school developers are still of the opinion that: - ASP.NET (controls, user controls, etc.) are bloated - under the hood, ASP.NET is merely concatenating HTML strings to write to the browser anyway - implementing our own engine that "writes" simple HTML to the browser is bound to perform better than the ASP.NET controls (less bloat, etc.) - using C# to write HTML strings to the browser is a good step upward, because it gets us away from vbscript and COM DLL hell I would like to build an argument for the contrary, but I am certainly willing to hear comments from both sides of the fence. A few arguments that I can think of off the top of my head might be: - ASP.NET is fine for so many other enterprise level sites, why are we special? - how maintainable would the codebase be if we are writing out HTML strings? - user controls are not perfect for use everywhere, but they definitely do have some advantages (code maintainability) - how long would it take to get a newly hired ASP.NET developer "up to speed" with our methods if we implement our own thing? - if the only real thing you are going to change about the development infrastructure is the language to C#, then is there really any point? I'm looking for thoughts and opinions. I don't want to be a MS evangelist, but given the options we are comparing, it seems clear to me that true, typical ASP.NET development is the way to go, but I'd appreciate hearing some additional arguments. Thanks. [EDIT] I would like to clarify that while the methods they plan to use are not adopting typical ASP.NET, they are also not proposing the other extreme of a C# page full of Response.Write commands. They would make use of some proper classes/objects to support the creation of HTML strings in a more structured way than true vbscript. In the end, it would probably wind up being a hybrid of decent C# OOP and vbscript style "string writing". -- modified at 17:04 Tuesday 5th December, 2006
Thanks alot for sharing, it's appreciated.