Classic ASP owns ASP.NET

[nero120]

Right, after working on this thing for a few weeks now it is clear to me that classic ASP was so much more productive than ASP.NET. Classic was lightweight and easy to implement. It was not restrictive and that meant that you could easily build a site in classic alongside reams of javascript controls and anything else. And best of all you could build sites easily using notepad.

ASP.NET however sacrifices productivity for overwhelmingly pointless strict typing, confusion, 100s of times more lines of pointless code, the need to use Visual Studio if you expect to get anywhere in less than 3 weeks, and more crap.

Ive spent my time building a simple site to manage XML files using a datagrid control, and the amount of wasted time checking countless methods, properties, events, types, etc, etc is unbelievable! I could have built the site in classic in half this time and added far more functionality than ASP.NET allows me to (in a reasonable amount of effort).

I cannot understand why anyone would require such an overbloated and complex platform to built a fricking website. What a shame that ASP.NET is here to stay. Talk about taking a step backwards.

 

[elkdanger]

To be honest I haven't looked into using ASP.Net for websites but I would agree with you on the point that I wouldn't use such a bloated library for that. But I guess it does depend on the type of website or web application you want to build.

It's all about using the right tool for the job, really.

 

[Beansprout]

It's all about picking the right tools for the right job, and of course learning how to use them....I hated perl when I first started to use it but recently it's all starting to become clear and I love its power, even if it's not especially pretty.

ASP.NET is an enterprise tool, and coupled with Vistual Studio you probably won't find a better development environment out there (uh-oh, flamewar time)....so I'd guess you just need to get used to it to learn the ropes, styles and shortcuts etc.

 

[nero120]

ASP.NET is an enterprise tool, and coupled with Vistual Studio you probably won't find a better development environment out there (uh-oh, flamewar time)....so I'd guess you just need to get used to it to learn the ropes, styles and shortcuts etc.

But you have to define 'better'. My comparison was down to the time taken to pick up the technology from scratch, the tools needed to implement the technology, and the time taken to implement the application in the technology. For my project, ASP.NET lost miserably at these things. I cannot imagine many web applications that would justify such complexity, yet all you hear is "ASP.NET! ASP.NET!".

You're both right that its all about picking the right tools for the job, but who is really doing that with ASP.NET? Because its the new buzz technology everyone wants to use it to their detrement. A simple or medium-sized web application that could be implemented quickly and maintained easily with high staff turnover, becomes a monster of an application that requires masses of documentation and people familiar with the code to maintain it. Plus, you have to use Visual Studio if you want to get anything done, which is ridiculous.

 

[Beansprout]

I'll have to pass specific questions on ASP.NET because I've only ever written a few lines of ASP* in my entire life and I very much dislike it (maybe I'm just a PHP/Perl guy or maybe I'm just not familiar enough to love it yet)

 

[nero120]

I'll have to pass specific questions on ASP.NET because I've only ever written a few lines of ASP* in my entire life and I very much dislike it (maybe I'm just a PHP/Perl guy or maybe I'm just not familiar enough to love it yet)

Well I've done ASP, ASP.NET, Java, Perl, PHP and Pascal. I am a fan of simplicity. I don't like my life being complicated for no reason. I simply don't like ASP.NET because it overcomplicates problems. I suppose this doesnt just apply to .NET, but the whole OOP paradigm. Java I also found to be a royal pain in the ass, but at that time it was being used to develop client based applications, and so I could forgive it. I just don't see a place for OOP in most web based applications, for what are essentially getdata;manipulatedata;displaydata operations.

I am also not a fan of strong typing. I can appreciate not assigning an Integer a String Value, but getting an error because I tried to assign a String hex value to the BackColor property of a TextBox object when it should have been a Color object is a little too pedantic for my liking. So now I have to create a color object, assign it a hex value and convert it to a string, 3 more tasks rather than the 1 that it used to be! That is what bugs me, more work for no gain.

 

[~J~]

but getting an error because I tried to assign a String hex value to the BackColor property of a TextBox object when it should have been a Color object is a little too pedantic for my liking. So now I have to create a color object, assign it a hex value and convert it to a string, 3 more tasks rather than the 1 that it used to be! That is what bugs me, more work for no gain.

I'm lost

I've used the ASP.Net datagrid for a few years now, and I just don't understand what your problem is.

IF you're using the DataGrid template, which in itself is a series of HTML encoded on your aspx page (not the code behind), then defining the colours for, say, column headers, alternating colours, footers, a particular column, etc, is exactly the same as you would normally assign a background colour for any HTML element. None of this hex->String->Control of what ever you have done.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but if used properly (and that is NOT meant to be insulting, so apologies if it comes across as that), but if used properly, it's a damn handy little grid. Albeit NOT the best, but it's pretty damn easy to use.

 

[nero120]

I'm lost

I've used the ASP.Net datagrid for a few years now, and I just don't understand what your problem is.

IF you're using the DataGrid template, which in itself is a series of HTML encoded on your aspx page (not the code behind), then defining the colours for, say, column headers, alternating colours, footers, a particular column, etc, is exactly the same as you would normally assign a background colour for any HTML element. None of this hex->String->Control of what ever you have done.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but if used properly (and that is NOT meant to be insulting, so apologies if it comes across as that), but if used properly, it's a damn handy little grid. Albeit NOT the best, but it's pretty damn easy to use.

Yeah, its easy if you want a static datagrid when you know how many columns you have, but once you try to add generic behaviour thats when the problems start. To actually manipulate the elements of the datagrid when you dont know how many columns there will be is much more effort than it should be. What if I wanted to change certain edit textbox properties dynamically depending on their possible text value? To do that you have to understand the events of the datagrid, and that is wasted time as far as im concerned. I just wanted to change a fricking textbox colour!

And that is my point. ASP.NET sure is powerful, but that power comes at the cost of complexity. You have to understand a server control completely before you can utilise it in any reasonable way (especially if you are not using Visual Studio), and considering how many events, properties and methods that entails, it is a lot of work to simply change a textbox colour at runtime.

Im a pretty sharp guy (I got a 1st at uni in Software Engineering), but its taken me about a whole day to figure out just how you do that, and that is really unacceptable to me. Im sure as time goes by I'll get much more comfortable with the coding approach that ASP.NET demands, but I don't want to have to become an expert to change the sodding colour of a textbox!

 

[~J~]

I just wanted to change a fricking textbox colour!

LOL - yeah, I know what you mean.

You're right, it is damn powerful and years ago it was probably acceptable to have something powerful AND hard to understand, but not today, especially if something is to be classed as a RAD environment.

Stick with it though, I remember having the same problem, especially when it came to creating dynamically created datagrids. The online documentation didn't help, I had to rely on tricks from other developers (even cheats I guess they'd be). Like for dynamically sizing the number of columns, I'd do all the data integregation to see how many columns I needed, and then in the Page_Render event (which is before the Page_Load event), I'd create several dozen lines of HTML script that created the datagrid control for me with however many columns.

It's the clever things like that which you'll never read in the official documentation.

Anyway, glad to see you got the colour of the textbox sorted, let's just hope your customer doesn't want it alternating

 

[happytechie]

When you try building a BIG enterprise level web bases application in ASP classic you'll realise just what a step forward ASP.net (and even moreso ASP.net 2.0) is form the classic way of doing things. We use all C# (well mostly retrained java) delvelopment and can use the classic OOP techniques to make an agile and extremly reative development model work. To do all this in ASP classic would lead to millions of lines of script that would be impossible to debug and maintain.

you find ASP easy becaue you know it, once you know and understand the .net 2.0 libraries you'll find it much easier and faster to build large complex applications in ASP.net than it would be to build that same application in ASP classic

just my 2p

HT

 

[nero120]

LOL - yeah, I know what you mean.

You're right, it is damn powerful and years ago it was probably acceptable to have something powerful AND hard to understand, but not today, especially if something is to be classed as a RAD environment.

Thats it. I used to love web development because of the fact that it wasnt such a brain ache to create a very functional web app with minimal effort. Thanks to ASP.NET that has now changed, and web dev is as boring as com dev!

Stick with it though, I remember having the same problem, especially when it came to creating dynamically created datagrids. The online documentation didn't help, I had to rely on tricks from other developers (even cheats I guess they'd be). Like for dynamically sizing the number of columns, I'd do all the data integregation to see how many columns I needed, and then in the Page_Render event (which is before the Page_Load event), I'd create several dozen lines of HTML script that created the datagrid control for me with however many columns.

It's the clever things like that which you'll never read in the official documentation.

Yeah, thats exactly what Im finding. MSDN is not helping me at all and could their code examples be any worse??!!!

Anyway, glad to see you got the colour of the textbox sorted, let's just hope your customer doesn't want it alternating

ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

 

[nero120]

When you try building a BIG enterprise level web bases application in ASP classic you'll realise just what a step forward ASP.net (and even moreso ASP.net 2.0) is form the classic way of doing things. We use all C# (well mostly retrained java) delvelopment and can use the classic OOP techniques to make an agile and extremly reative development model work. To do all this in ASP classic would lead to millions of lines of script that would be impossible to debug and maintain.

Totally, and thats what it was made for. What annoys me is this attitude that every web app has to be in .net, even small and medium sized ones, and thanks to microsoft depredating classic they have to be. So for anything except big enterprise level apps you have a law of diminishing returns.

you find ASP easy becaue you know it, once you know and understand the .net 2.0 libraries you'll find it much easier and faster to build large complex applications in ASP.net than it would be to build that same application in ASP classic

Thats true, but classic took no time at all to pick up and use effectively, where as ASP.NET is obviously a lot harder to pick up. Im sure you're right that one day I will fly through those libraries, and I guess thats something, but when I need to change the textbox colour right now it doesn thelp at all!!

 

[paulsheff]

I could never get on with classic; it just didn't 'go in' properly in the old noggin. First impression of ASP.NET 2.0 it does feel a touch over engineered for the want of a better expression, there seems to be more to take care of and less freedom, but, and maybe it’s just because I’ve been programming sites for longer now than when I tried classic, it does seem to make more sense in the way it goes about things.

I’ve not used it extensively, just some basic tweaking of a cms for a company that had ended up being provided with a horrible solution, and while like you I made slow progress with several books to hand, it did feel like the real deal, something that when my proficiency in it picks up will be a very useful language to work with.

 

[happytechie]

have you got a MSDN subsrciption? if so get a dual monitor system set up and leave the class libraray refernce open on one screen and Visual studio open in ther other. It makes for a much easier life.

If not the O'Reily ASP.net 2.0 in a nutshell book is BRILLIANT as a reference book. I should also say that I'm not an ASP person at all, I work as a software architect and designer, any code that I do wright is web services, databases or other back end stuff that needs optimising or a performance hike.

If you know Java, have a go creating ASP.net pagen in C# with a code behind file. The dev name for C# was "I can't believe it's not java" and apart from the API differences and a few minor langugae differences (properties and a foreach statement mostly) you'll feel right at home. I find that the OO aspects are much easier to understand in C# than they are in ASP.VB.netScript or whatever it's called

HT

 

[DanF]

Thats true, but classic took no time at all to pick up and use effectively, where as ASP.NET is obviously a lot harder to pick up. Im sure you're right that one day I will fly through those libraries, and I guess thats something, but when I need to change the textbox colour right now it doesn thelp at all!!

Sorry I completly disagree, asp is a complete nightmare to try and learn, it's just so friggin horrible. I've used asp.net 1.1 for over a year and now two major projects in 2.0 I simply cannot go back. The whole team thinks it, even the ones that loved asp and fought really hard to keep it. When you have a whole team working across 3 projects at different times VS2005 and team foundation server really start to work for you. All the biz, data, trasport layers etc are so easily reused. But I do agree with it being totally over speced for smaller sites.

And step away from the datagrid, put it down before it goes off in your hand We just use Repeaters everywhere for tables etc. Full control of whats going on, divs, tables etc etc. Much clearner html and you can almost get it fully compliant lol

 

[DanF]

Ah yeah forgot to add, the new help system in VS2005 and msdn for .net 2 is rubbish. VS2003 seemed fairly solid for 1.1 though.

Also there are a few times when crazy stuff happens, like any environment you need to learn and understand quite a lot to get on with it. Also view the source it's producing in the browser as at times it can be a little quirky.

<rant>
And Generics in .net 2.0 is better than chips n cheese all at the same time
</rant>

 

[nero120]

Sorry I completly disagree, asp is a complete nightmare to try and learn, it's just so friggin horrible. I've used asp.net 1.1 for over a year and now two major projects in 2.0 I simply cannot go back. The whole team thinks it, even the ones that loved asp and fought really hard to keep it. When you have a whole team working across 3 projects at different times VS2005 and team foundation server really start to work for you. All the biz, data, trasport layers etc are so easily reused. But I do agree with it being totally over speced for smaller sites.

I cannot argue against ASP.NET for larger projects, but it is a shame that microsoft has decided not to continue classic (or an updated form of classic) for small to medium projects. I think they are needlessly throwing away potential projects when it would do no harm to provide a cut down environment that is much more user friendly, easy to pick up and doesnt require their dev tools. People will no doubt turn to php to develop their smaller projects when they would have potentially used microsoft tools. But one look at ASP.NET will probably make them sick!

And step away from the datagrid, put it down before it goes off in your hand We just use Repeaters everywhere for tables etc. Full control of whats going on, divs, tables etc etc. Much clearner html and you can almost get it fully compliant lol

But at the cost of much more code! Datagrids are usefull because they have some neat functionality built in (when you can get it to work ). Repeaters are much more customisable, but you have to add all functionality yourself. Had I have known getting into the nitty gritty of data grids would be such a pain, I may have gone with repeaters after all!

 

[Mr^B]

Surely you can write pages in ASP.Net (VB or C#) in exactly the same way that you would with Classic ASP?

Just stick all the code inline and there's very little difference between the two if you don't want there to be. You don't have to use the new asp: runat="server" tags, they are just there for convenience. You don't even need MS dev tools to do that, notepad will suffice.

You can even fudge ADO.Net to act as if it's still a connected ADO recordset if you really want.

Oh, and if your experience is with ASP.Net 1.1, then you have my sympathies as it's a bag of donkey gonads, ASP.Net 2.0 is immesurably superior (no more of this crazy notion of redefining page items in the code-behind as well as the main .aspx page).

I started off really disliking ASP.Net, but the more I use it (and an MCSD.Net qualification later) I now really baulk at having to maintain legacy classic ASP code...

 

[robc123]

When you try building a BIG enterprise level web bases application in ASP classic you'll realise just what a step forward ASP.net (and even moreso ASP.net 2.0) is form the classic way of doing things. We use all C# (well mostly retrained java) delvelopment and can use the classic OOP techniques to make an agile and extremly reative development model work. To do all this in ASP classic would lead to millions of lines of script that would be impossible to debug and maintain.

you find ASP easy becaue you know it, once you know and understand the .net 2.0 libraries you'll find it much easier and faster to build large complex applications in ASP.net than it would be to build that same application in ASP classic

just my 2p

HT

Spoken like someone who knows that they are talking about. Saved me typing most of what I was going to put.

As Beansprout said, its all about choosing the right tools.

If your handling massive transactions and dealing with business users then you need to think about tiered application design etc

 

[phykell]

ASP.NET vs Classic ASP? If you're using both to write simple web sites, well you may as well stick with Classic ASP, but then ASP.NET is pretty much a superset of Classic ASP anyway, so what's the problem with using ASP.NET as you would Classic ASP and only using the bits of ASP.NET that you need?

ASP.NET is not supposed to be a replacement of Classic ASP with regards to allowing you to write similar stuff to the sites you've been used to, it's to allow you to write the next generation of web applications, for which Classic ASP is just not a reasonable choice. It's not just the development of the application either, it's how a web application is presented to the users with regards to performance and robustness. As web applications get ever more complex, you need a solution that offers high performance, strong security and robustness designed in from first principles. Classic ASP might be easy to write a basic app in but it's hopeless for enterprise level web applications and as good as programmers can be at tweaking Classic ASP to do what they need, ultimately most realise that Classic ASP has serious issues when it comes to anything but the simplest web applications. As the demand for richer content and more functionality grows, these issues will become ever more painfully obvious. That's why ASP.NET is the future and that's why the learning curve is so much steeper, because the benefits of ASP.NET in terms of fulfilling the enterprise's requirements, are so much greater.