DotNet 2.0

[Paxton]

Anyone played with DotNet 2.0 or the Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
Edition yet? any thoughts?

/P.

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

Paxton wrote:

Anyone played with DotNet 2.0 or the Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
Edition yet? any thoughts?

/P.

There was no way for you to know it, but this is a classic asp newsgroup.
While you may be lucky enough to find a dotnet-savvy person here who can
answer your question, you can eliminate the luck factor by posting your
question to a newsgroup where the dotnet-savvy people hang out. I suggest
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.framew ork.aspnet.

I've heard lots of good things about it, but all I can say about it is that
it installed without a hitch on my machine. I have not had a chance to start
using it yet.

HTH,
Bob Barrows
--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Paxton]

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:

Paxton wrote:

Anyone played with DotNet 2.0 or the Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
Edition yet? any thoughts?

/P.

There was no way for you to know it, but this is a classic asp newsgroup.
While you may be lucky enough to find a dotnet-savvy person here who can
answer your question, you can eliminate the luck factor by posting your
question to a newsgroup where the dotnet-savvy people hang out. I suggest
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.framew ork.aspnet.

I've heard lots of good things about it, but all I can say about it is that
it installed without a hitch on my machine. I have not had a chance to start
using it yet.

HTH,
Bob Barrows

I didn't expect the standard .NET response! :-)

I'm a classic ASP-er too, and was just interested to find out whether
other classic ASP-ers have tried out the latest .NET offering from
Uncle Bill, and what their initial thoughts on it were.

Having tried 1.1, and found that simply connecting to a database and
generating a recordset required tons more code in .NET than classic
ASP, I never really bothered to stick with it. I've only played with
the new VWD toy for a couple of hours, but was amazed at how much
simpler it is to do quite a lot of things now.

/P.

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

Paxton wrote:

I didn't expect the standard .NET response! :-)

Bwahahahaha. NOBODY expects the ....

Oh, wait. You didn't say "Spanish Inquisition" ...

Never mind. :-)

--
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.

[Michael D. Kersey]

Paxton wrote:
<snipped>

I'm a classic ASP-er too, and was just interested to find out whether
other classic ASP-ers have tried out the latest .NET offering from
Uncle Bill, and what their initial thoughts on it were.

Having tried 1.1, and found that simply connecting to a database and
generating a recordset required tons more code in .NET than classic
ASP, I never really bothered to stick with it. I've only played with
the new VWD toy for a couple of hours, but was amazed at how much
simpler it is to do quite a lot of things now.
/P.
Yes, it's now almost caught up with Sybase's PowerBuilder!

One pain for those who used ASP.NET 1.1 is that some 1.1 objects are now
effectively deprecated. The old 1.1 grid control has been supplanted by
a superior new "gridview" which provides much functionality with no
explicit coding. There's more on this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...87abde73de5f0c

Anyone who wrote a lot of code for ASP.NET 1.1 will eventually find
themselves rewriting for ASP.NET 2.0 (and ASP.NET 3.0 etc.).

The troublesome thing about object frameworks like VS and ASP.NET is
that this will occur many times over in the history of the framework. I
avoid development of complex OOP architectures on top of vendor object
libraries (such as ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0) because the vendors inevitably
revise/reorganize/rewrite the libraries, which forces you to rewrite
your own code. Like Joel Spolsky says,
we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.

from
"How Microsoft Lost the API War"
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

IMO Visual Studio (VS) and ASP.NET 2.0 are fine provided you don't want
to know what's happening under the sheets. VS has drag-and-drop for the
WWW and continues Microsoft's pursuit of making the Internet transparent
(as Bill Gates said about TCP/IP "It's only transport!"). To do this VS
generates lots of code and ASP.NET calls lots of functions in your
behalf, so you may or may not like the results.

But I'm just speaking from what I've seen and what my cohorts say. I
don't use VS or ASP.NET myself; I now primarily use free-and open-source
(FOSS) languages and toolkits.

[Paxton]

Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:

Paxton wrote:

I didn't expect the standard .NET response! :-)

Bwahahahaha. NOBODY expects the ....

Oh, wait. You didn't say "Spanish Inquisition" ...

Never mind. :-)

That reminds me - I MUST add Monty Python DVDs to my Xmas list :-)

/P.

[Stefan Berglund]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:00:01 -0600, "Michael D. Kersey" <md******@hal-pc.org>
wrote:
in <e7************ **@TK2MSFTNGP15 .phx.gbl>

Paxton wrote:
<snipped>

I'm a classic ASP-er too, and was just interested to find out whether
other classic ASP-ers have tried out the latest .NET offering from
Uncle Bill, and what their initial thoughts on it were.

Having tried 1.1, and found that simply connecting to a database and
generating a recordset required tons more code in .NET than classic
ASP, I never really bothered to stick with it. I've only played with
the new VWD toy for a couple of hours, but was amazed at how much
simpler it is to do quite a lot of things now.
/P.

Yes, it's now almost caught up with Sybase's PowerBuilder!

One pain for those who used ASP.NET 1.1 is that some 1.1 objects are now
effectively deprecated. The old 1.1 grid control has been supplanted by
a superior new "gridview" which provides much functionality with no
explicit coding. There's more on this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...87abde73de5f0c

Anyone who wrote a lot of code for ASP.NET 1.1 will eventually find
themselves rewriting for ASP.NET 2.0 (and ASP.NET 3.0 etc.).

The troublesome thing about object frameworks like VS and ASP.NET is
that this will occur many times over in the history of the framework. I
avoid development of complex OOP architectures on top of vendor object
libraries (such as ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0) because the vendors inevitably
revise/reorganize/rewrite the libraries, which forces you to rewrite
your own code. Like Joel Spolsky says,

we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.

from
"How Microsoft Lost the API War"
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

IMO Visual Studio (VS) and ASP.NET 2.0 are fine provided you don't want
to know what's happening under the sheets. VS has drag-and-drop for the
WWW and continues Microsoft's pursuit of making the Internet transparent
(as Bill Gates said about TCP/IP "It's only transport!"). To do this VS
generates lots of code and ASP.NET calls lots of functions in your
behalf, so you may or may not like the results.

But I'm just speaking from what I've seen and what my cohorts say. I
don't use VS or ASP.NET myself; I now primarily use free-and open-source
(FOSS) languages and toolkits.

microsoft would really prefer to make the Internet invisible and inaccessible
(as opposed to transparent) because the Internet has allowed that backward OSS
group of folks to gain far too much long term credibility.

---
Stefan Berglund