By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,016 Members | 2,255 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,016 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

ASP vs ASP.NET

P: n/a
Complete newbie questions!

Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?

I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a whole lot
more, is more up to date and more future proof, so would prefer that some
work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why would a company I am
dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP? They have said that ASP.NET
is not proven and so ASP is more reliable. They have also said that they are
more experienced with ASP than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the
same? I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.

Richard
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
30 Replies


P: n/a
> Why would a company I am
dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP?
- learning curve (it is NOT ASP+)
- consistency with existing codebase
- fear of change
wouldn't the "language" be the same?


NO! ASP is typically written in VBScript or JScript. ASP.Net is typically
written in VB.Net or C#.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Richard Liddiment" <Ri*****@cfp-software.co.uk> wrote in
news:cb**********@hercules.btinternet.com:
Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
Because it's easier to code in (at least for me)
Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?
Because it's more robust
I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a
whole lot more, is more up to date and more future proof, so would
prefer that some work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why
would a company I am dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP?
Their developer pool is probably primarily ASP, and is not comfortable
with the .NET architecture.
They have said that ASP.NET is not proven and so ASP is more reliable.
They have also said that they are more experienced with ASP than
ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the same?
Um, mostly. It's just similar enough to provide a false sense of
security. A good example would be Olde Englishe versus modern English -
technically they're the same language, but in practice and structure
there are key differences, and somebody speaking one would have a very
hard time understanding somebody who spoke the other.
I am a complete
novice to this so would like some impartial comments on whether I
should insist they use ASP.NET.


Well, this isn't exactly impartial, but I personally prefer ASP because
I can whip some code out pretty fast in it without having to struggle
over it.
Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
ASP is simpler as you are on your own. If you have something in ASP that
work, an upgrade is not always worth.

ASP.NET provides a whole infrastructure that mimics the usual event driven
programming in Windows. You have access to the whole .NET library (such as
drawings) and you have modules for most common tasks (such as form
authentication). IMO harder for newbies (as it hides the Web underlying
principles which is both an advantage/disavantadge).

Languages are not identical (ASP.NET uses C#, Visual Basic 2003 or any other
..NET based language) instead of JavaScript, VBScript...

--

"Richard Liddiment" <Ri*****@cfp-software.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:cb**********@hercules.btinternet.com...
Complete newbie questions!

Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?

I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a whole lot more, is more up to date and more future proof, so would prefer that some
work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why would a company I am
dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP? They have said that ASP.NET is not proven and so ASP is more reliable. They have also said that they are more experienced with ASP than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the
same? I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.

Richard

Jul 19 '05 #4

P: n/a
Personally, I prefer ASP.NET. The learning curve is certainly higher, but
some of the features are well worth the "upgrade" (so to speak) in my mind.
I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I don't
really have that style of an option with ASP.

The truly object oriented nature is also a large selling point to me, and
code re-use becomes a lot easier. I love the fact that I can write a DLL in
C# and have a fellow programmer using VB.NET access that DLL without using
C# syntax.

Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET specific
features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter time
frame (post learning curve) than I can with "classic" ASP.

James
Jul 19 '05 #5

P: n/a
> I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I don't
really have that style of an option with ASP.
JScript comes pretty close, no?
Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET specific features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter

time

I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the ".NET
specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very verbose
..NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
subjective arguments can really fall both ways...

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
Jul 19 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I don't really have that style of an option with ASP.
JScript comes pretty close, no?


JScript is similar, and certainly a lot closer than VBScript. Unfortunately
at my current position I'm stuck with VBScript, so I'll have to suck it up.
Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET specific
features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter

time

I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the

".NET specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very verbose
.NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
subjective arguments can really fall both ways...


I agree to an extent. There are some things that I can crank out in notepad
with ASP in less time than it would take me to load VS.NET. There is a lot
of overhead for "smaller" projects in .NET. The platform you choose
certainly depends on your project type/scale. For large scale applications,
I'd have to give the edge to .NET, especially for multi-person development.
For a relatively small, quick deadline application...I might just crank it
out with ASP. Granted, this is all a matter of opinion.

I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.
Jul 19 '05 #7

P: n/a
<<<<I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.>>>>

I don't understand this comment. How is the code being compiled a blessing
for contract work?

Bob Lehmann
"James Baker" <cp******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uy**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I don't really have that style of an option with ASP.
JScript comes pretty close, no?


JScript is similar, and certainly a lot closer than VBScript.

Unfortunately at my current position I'm stuck with VBScript, so I'll have to suck it up.
Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET specific
features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter

time

I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the

".NET
specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very verbose .NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
subjective arguments can really fall both ways...


I agree to an extent. There are some things that I can crank out in

notepad with ASP in less time than it would take me to load VS.NET. There is a lot of overhead for "smaller" projects in .NET. The platform you choose
certainly depends on your project type/scale. For large scale applications, I'd have to give the edge to .NET, especially for multi-person development. For a relatively small, quick deadline application...I might just crank it
out with ASP. Granted, this is all a matter of opinion.

I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.

Jul 19 '05 #8

P: n/a
Source code protection, I'll assume?

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)


"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:uH**************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
<<<<I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.>>>>

I don't understand this comment. How is the code being compiled a blessing
for contract work?

Bob Lehmann
"James Baker" <cp******@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uy**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:u0**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I

don't
> really have that style of an option with ASP.

JScript comes pretty close, no?


JScript is similar, and certainly a lot closer than VBScript.

Unfortunately
at my current position I'm stuck with VBScript, so I'll have to suck it

up.

> Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET
specific
> features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is > archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter time

I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the

".NET
specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very verbose .NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
subjective arguments can really fall both ways...


I agree to an extent. There are some things that I can crank out in

notepad
with ASP in less time than it would take me to load VS.NET. There is a

lot
of overhead for "smaller" projects in .NET. The platform you choose
certainly depends on your project type/scale. For large scale

applications,
I'd have to give the edge to .NET, especially for multi-person

development.
For a relatively small, quick deadline application...I might just crank it out with ASP. Granted, this is all a matter of opinion.

I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.


Jul 19 '05 #9

P: n/a
> Source code protection, I'll assume?

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Exactly. Depending on the contract, sometimes they pay for the source code
and it's a one time shot with no maintenance contract. In that case, it
makes little/no difference. I can't count the times, however, where we've
had someone go in and tinker with the code only to find out that they had no
idea what they were doing, and it can be seriously painful to figure out
what they did. As much as this might mean more cash in the long run, I'd
just as soon avoid the issue entirely.

Jul 19 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:13:05 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Liddiment"
<Ri*****@cfp-software.co.uk> wrote:
Complete newbie questions!

Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
Because you know it.
Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?
Because you need to do things you can't in ASP classic.
I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a whole lot
more...
Stop assuming and start learning.
is more up to date and more future proof, so would prefer that some
work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why would a company I am
dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP?
Asked and answered. Refer to your very first question.
They have said that ASP.NET
is not proven and so ASP is more reliable.
They don't know how to make ASP.NET do what you want.
They have also said that they are
more experienced with ASP than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the
same?
Neither ASP nor ASP.NET is a language, so the answer is no. ASP is
Jscript or VBScript, ASP.NET is often C# and sometimes VBScript.
Functionality, performance and compatibility issues vary for each as
well.
I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.


1) It's your dime, get what you want.

2) It's their ability you're paying for, don't force them out of
their comfort zone.

3) Hire a company that you trust and let them do it the way they know
will do what you want.

4) Your current developers don't meet the first half of #3.

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #11

P: n/a
> ASP.NET is often C# and sometimes VBScript.

VB.Net, not VBScript...

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
Jul 19 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:13:05 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Liddiment"
<Ri*****@cfp-software.co.uk> wrote:
Complete newbie questions!

Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET
Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?
Because it's better at everything.
I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP
Not quite. I'm sure that ASP has at least one feature that
ASP.NET doesn't!

However the point of ASP.NET is that it's a completely different
way of working which, I think we can all agree, is better for
99% of jobs.
plus a whole lot more, is more up to date and more future proof,
and helps the programmer to be more efficient - it should take
less time to code.
so would prefer that some
work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET.
Very sensible of you.
Why would a company I am dealing with prefer to stick with
standard ASP?
!!? Who can say. A good ASP programmer could probably start
using ASP.NET within weeks. It's hard to imagine why they
wouldn't.

OK. I'll have a go at answering your question. If the active
server part is not that great there probably isn't much of a
need to move to ASP.NET. Maybe they are primarily a web design
company that do some active server pages? Perhaps the market
demand in their sector of the market is not great enough?
They have said that ASP.NET is not proven and so ASP is
more reliable.
Sounds like inertia to me. ASP.NET is proven and would be MORE
reliable for most of the web-sites one would design with it. For
instance. a) Because it avoids client-side code there should be
no browser incompatibility problems. b) Complex pages can be
written in ASP.NET with more adherence to software engineering
concepts, so ASP.NETsites should be easier to maintain.
They have also said that they are more experienced with ASP
than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the same?
At the time it was launched everyone was more experienced with
ASP.NET ASP.NET is a huge leap forward from ASP. The languages
are not the same, but not that different. Please understand that
when one codes in ASP the one uses several "languages": ASP,
VBScript, Javascript, HTML, XML, SQL, ADO... In comparison
ASP.NET includes ASP.NET, VB 7, C#, Javascript, HTML, XML and
SQL, ADO.NET. So many of the languages are the same but some are
quite different. Within the preceding 2 lists ASP is very
different to ASP.NET.
I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.
No one will give you in impartial comment. But I think you
should also have posted this to
news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet, so I've sent my
reply there too.
Richard


Jul 19 '05 #13

P: n/a
> Because it's better at everything.

Bwahahahaha! That's pretty funny. Especially when you immediately say:
I'm sure that ASP has at least one feature that
ASP.NET doesn't! I think we can all agree, is better for
99% of jobs.
I think if you look through this thread, you'll see that, no, we don't all
agree with that. I still believe that ASP is a much more rapid development
environment for smaller, fewer-people projects. And I imagine most of us
are involved in such projects.
and helps the programmer to be more efficient - it should take
less time to code.
I spend a LOT more time jumping through all the hoops of establishing a
datareader than I ever did using a recordset and getrows. It's a lot more
code and because the syntax is a lot tighter a lot more can -- and often
does -- go wrong. In almost all cases I've approached so far, development
time in ASP.NET was longer than it would have been in ASP. For much larger
scale projects, then yes, I can see how the new architecture can help.
However, in much larger scale projects, the technology chosen is usually not
based on one guy asking for opinions in a public newsgroup. Most of us are
not making decisions about projects of that magnitude.
a) Because it avoids client-side code


ASP.NET avoids client-side code? Are you sure you've used it?

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
Jul 19 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:17:19 -0400, "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]"
<te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote:
Because it's better at everything.
Bwahahahaha! That's pretty funny. Especially when you immediately say:
I'm sure that ASP has at least one feature that
ASP.NET doesn't!

I think we can all agree, is better for
99% of jobs.


I think if you look through this thread, you'll see that, no, we don't all
agree with that. I still believe that ASP is a much more rapid development
environment for smaller, fewer-people projects. And I imagine most of us
are involved in such projects.
and helps the programmer to be more efficient - it should take
less time to code.


I spend a LOT more time jumping through all the hoops of establishing a
datareader than I ever did using a recordset and getrows. It's a lot more
code and because the syntax is a lot tighter a lot more can -- and often
does -- go wrong. In almost all cases I've approached so far, development
time in ASP.NET was longer than it would have been in ASP.


Coding time is only part of the time. What about design time
and, especially, maintenance time? Which environment would you
prefer then?
For much larger
scale projects, then yes, I can see how the new architecture can help.
However, in much larger scale projects, the technology chosen is usually not
based on one guy asking for opinions in a public newsgroup. Most of us are
not making decisions about projects of that magnitude.
a) Because it avoids client-side code


ASP.NET avoids client-side code? Are you sure you've used it?


I accept your point but the use of client-side code within
ASP.NET is more limited and nearly always avoidable or
replaceable by server-side code. Much more so than ASP.

Why did you remove news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
from the headers when you replied to my post? I've added it back
but people in news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
should probably start at the root if they want to understand
this thread. Begin here:
Message-ID: <cb**********@hercules.btinternet.com>

Jul 19 '05 #15

P: n/a
> Coding time is only part of the time. What about design time
and, especially, maintenance time? Which environment would you
prefer then?
ASP still. This is subjective. You're never going to convince me that
ASP.Net is "better" using some kind of textbook definition, because none
exists. For every point you make that ASP.Net is better at this or that, I
can counter-point in favor of ASP.
I accept your point but the use of client-side code within
ASP.NET is more limited and nearly always avoidable or
replaceable by server-side code.
No it's not! There are all kinds of client-side postback features etc. that
REQUIRE client-side code. The only advantage in ASP.Net is that the work is
done for you, but it's not a landslide benefit (you still have to deal with
browser incompatibilities).
Why did you remove news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
from the headers when you replied to my post?


Because I don't want this to turn into a "my dad can beat up your dad",
bullshit religious war between the two communities. They're separate for a
reason!

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
Jul 19 '05 #16

P: n/a
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:10:49 -0400, "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]"
<te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote:
ASP.NET is often C# and sometimes VBScript.


VB.Net, not VBScript...


Damned fingers! Type faster than my brain... :)

Jeff

(Which isn't too hard anyway.)
Jul 19 '05 #17

P: n/a
client side code is no more limited than asp from my experience.

Main reason i'm learning to like asp.net better than asp is because n-tier
is much easier to implement. In the past (vs6 and earlier) you had to write
your middle tier on vb which has no usefull OOP ability, or vc++ which was a
ton of coding overhead due to microsoft's freaky way of doing things. So
most my apps were j++ with javareg for middle tier, which is unsupported
now. Java at the time was much much easier to write and read, with all the
benifits of OOP.

Now with .NET/CLR what you have is a supported and much much more integrated
version of java (essentially). If microsoft would support and push the
expansion of .NET archetecture to linux, sun, mac which is perfectly
reasonable... .NET would definatley overshadow Java for the industry
standard.

Was i happy with the ASP/Java approach? yup. But there is nothing i could
do there that i cant do here. Aside from that i'm liking c# a bit better
than java, not by a mile but by a few feet.

I accept your point but the use of client-side code within
ASP.NET is more limited and nearly always avoidable or
replaceable by server-side code. Much more so than ASP.

Jul 19 '05 #18

P: n/a
>>Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET


I know VBScript. I don't know C# or VB.NET. I need my code finished
by 8:00 am tomorrow.

I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.

I have an extensive application using SQL Server as a backend and
fronted entirely with ASP, linked to my Exchange Server. I have to
change one page in it so it will now display the calling page.

Any more reasons that aren't good...?

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #19

P: n/a
> I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.


Or, similar, my QA department takes three months to approve such software
changes, and the deadline for the current project is in two weeks.

Or, the company is not willing to outfit the entire development team with a
new version of Visual Studio.NET.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
Jul 19 '05 #20

P: n/a
Learn C#, get a new hosting company and upgrade your site. Might require a
slight extension to your deadline, but that's the approach I would take =).
"Jeff Cochran" <je*********@zina.com> wrote in message
news:40*****************@msnews.microsoft.com...
Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?


There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET


I know VBScript. I don't know C# or VB.NET. I need my code finished
by 8:00 am tomorrow.

I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.

I have an extensive application using SQL Server as a backend and
fronted entirely with ASP, linked to my Exchange Server. I have to
change one page in it so it will now display the calling page.

Any more reasons that aren't good...?

Jeff

Jul 19 '05 #21

P: n/a
While I see your point, these are all incidental. Relative to the larger
argument of "which is better?" they don't really hold any weight, because
the situation could easily be reversed and holds no criticisms of either
platform.

Long story short, read up on the options and choose the platform based on
your needs ;-).
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <te*****@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.
Or, similar, my QA department takes three months to approve such software
changes, and the deadline for the current project is in two weeks.

Or, the company is not willing to outfit the entire development team with

a new version of Visual Studio.NET.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Jul 19 '05 #22

P: n/a
> Or, the company is not willing to outfit the entire development team with
a
new version of Visual Studio.NET.


Yes, you can code C# in notepad, but I don't think you'd want to. And
admittedly you could use that web matrix tool, but often that is
"unsupported 3rd party software," depending on the gestapo-ness of your IT
department.
Jul 19 '05 #23

P: n/a
> While I see your point, these are all incidental. Relative to the larger
argument of "which is better?" they don't really hold any weight, because
the situation could easily be reversed and holds no criticisms of either
platform.


Once again, I am in no way stating that any of these points means that ASP
is better or ASP.Net is better. As I have stated previously, this is a
subjective call, just like which car I should buy is different than which
car you should buy.

My points were in response to the statement, "There is no good reason to use
ASP rather than ASP.NET", nothing about which is better, just about
individual benefits of one over the other, and that there are scenarios
where some of these points ARE more important than the whole "which is
better" religious argument.

A
Jul 19 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:03:47 -0400, "James Baker"
<cp******@hotmail.com> wrote:
Learn C#, get a new hosting company and upgrade your site. Might require a
slight extension to your deadline, but that's the approach I would take =).
Which may be possible and work for you. It may not for others.

The original question was "Why use one over the other?" The answer is
always (or *should* always be) "Because that particular technology
fits the needs of the organization best."

Jeff

"Jeff Cochran" <je*********@zina.com> wrote in message
news:40*****************@msnews.microsoft.com.. .
>>Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
>
>There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET


I know VBScript. I don't know C# or VB.NET. I need my code finished
by 8:00 am tomorrow.

I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.

I have an extensive application using SQL Server as a backend and
fronted entirely with ASP, linked to my Exchange Server. I have to
change one page in it so it will now display the calling page.

Any more reasons that aren't good...?

Jeff


Jul 19 '05 #25

P: n/a
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:03:47 -0400, "James Baker"
<cp******@hotmail.com> wrote:
Learn C#, get a new hosting company and upgrade your site. Might require a
slight extension to your deadline, but that's the approach I would take =).
"Jeff Cochran" <je*********@zina.com> wrote in message
news:40*****************@msnews.microsoft.com.. .
>>Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
>
>There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET


I know VBScript. I don't know C# or VB.NET. I need my code finished
by 8:00 am tomorrow.

I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.

I have an extensive application using SQL Server as a backend and
fronted entirely with ASP, linked to my Exchange Server. I have to
change one page in it so it will now display the calling page.

Any more reasons that aren't good...?

Jeff


I agree with you. If the app is already written in ASP or only
small or simple then use ASP. But if you refer to the root of
this thread; message-ID: <cb**********@hercules.btinternet.com>,
I don't, necessarily think you'll find that's the case. I would
write a new, large or complex site in ASP.NET, even if I had to
learn it from scratch to do so. The guy who has to maintain it
may not thank me but so long as he doesn't curse having to
maintain more ASP that will be thanks enough; and that guy may
very well be the author.

Jul 19 '05 #26

P: n/a

I'd stick with asp for a while, but that's mostly becasue the company
that I work for made it a helluva lot more useful for me recently.
(http://www.naltabyte.com)
I need javascript for the clientside of things to make it
browser-independent, and I prefer to work with the same language on the
server (JScript), and if possible also the same logic, using the DOM.
- Using the same frame of mind all around suits me better.
Events, using ID's to find page-elements, etc, basic dhtml-concepts, are
all available more easily in asp.
Not in itself, but with some real minor tweaking, and this is what the
above mentioned company does, and it's so easy to do that I need to ask
myself why I should move to asp.Net, which is harder to redefine to suit
my individual needs, regardless any tweakings of any sort.
Live long and prosper(^-^)y

*** Sent via Devdex http://www.devdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
Jul 19 '05 #27

P: n/a
Dont think anyone would argue with that.

But given the original question and that it was posted in the aspnet
newsgroup i wouldnt go out and beat someone up for assuming it does fit the
business need. I currently work on asp.net on my personal time, at work i
support webclasses because "that fits their needs". As a matter of fact
cobol and fortran would fit their needs if i get it to spit out what they
are after. Doesnt mean it's a good way of doing things.

Do what fits the company needs, but if your in a position like me where all
those above you have never seen the technical side of things it's kind of a
responsibility to try and drive change. Webclasses work now, in 2008
support for VB ends, and the overhead of dealing with the app as it is
designed (not totally due to webclasses themselves) is very costly on my
time and their budget. Without my attempt to drive change, they will never
know this nor know alternatives and the cost/benifit with them.

"Jeff Cochran" <je*********@zina.com> wrote in message
news:40*****************@msnews.microsoft.com...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:03:47 -0400, "James Baker"
<cp******@hotmail.com> wrote:
Learn C#, get a new hosting company and upgrade your site. Might require aslight extension to your deadline, but that's the approach I would take
=).
Which may be possible and work for you. It may not for others.

The original question was "Why use one over the other?" The answer is
always (or *should* always be) "Because that particular technology
fits the needs of the organization best."

Jeff

"Jeff Cochran" <je*********@zina.com> wrote in message
news:40*****************@msnews.microsoft.com.. .
>>Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
>
>There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET

I know VBScript. I don't know C# or VB.NET. I need my code finished
by 8:00 am tomorrow.

I use a managed server that's under a three-year contract and the
contract doesn't allow the .NET Framework to be installed.

I have an extensive application using SQL Server as a backend and
fronted entirely with ASP, linked to my Exchange Server. I have to
change one page in it so it will now display the calling page.

Any more reasons that aren't good...?

Jeff

Jul 19 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:17:21 -0400, "shalafi" <ja**@bone.com> wrote:
Dont think anyone would argue with that.

But given the original question and that it was posted in the aspnet
newsgroup i wouldnt go out and beat someone up for assuming it does fit the
business need.


Except it was posted in *both* groups... :)

Jeff
Jul 19 '05 #29

P: n/a
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:24:45 GMT, je*********@zina.com (Jeff
Cochran) wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:17:21 -0400, "shalafi" <ja**@bone.com> wrote:
Dont think anyone would argue with that.

But given the original question and that it was posted in the aspnet
newsgroup i wouldnt go out and beat someone up for assuming it does fit the
business need.


Except it was posted in *both* groups... :)

Jeff


The thread started in the ASP group only. I cross-posted my
reply to the root post in the ASP.NET group.

Jul 19 '05 #30

P: n/a
Sorry, i didnt see that. reguardless.

Business needs are important. But IMHO if i see a business need leading
into a roadblock i feel the need to speak out and let those who actually
make the "business needs" see the light at the end of the tunnel or the wall
at the end of the tunnel.

Might not be true for others, but at least where i am they like to tie
business needs and implementation togeather.

Example: Using webclasses is a specific requirement within the project i'm
working for now. Any server which can run webclasses can run classic asp,
and classic asp could accomplish all other requirements. While classic asp
is just as supported as webclasses (not much), it's more popular and
solutions to some issues are easier to find. classic asp also avoids dll
registration problems and easier to automate replication and deployment.
classic asp is also easier to port in the future to asp.net.

if they specify that the application should be capable of being easily
ported to both unix/apache and iis, or capable of running on iis4/nt4 then
that would be a much more valid "business need" that i wouldnt argue with.
Just because it doesnt tie implementation and needs togeather.

"Zenobia" <6.**********@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:du********************************@4ax.com...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:24:45 GMT, je*********@zina.com (Jeff
Cochran) wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:17:21 -0400, "shalafi" <ja**@bone.com> wrote:
Dont think anyone would argue with that.

But given the original question and that it was posted in the aspnet
newsgroup i wouldnt go out and beat someone up for assuming it does fit thebusiness need.


Except it was posted in *both* groups... :)

Jeff


The thread started in the ASP group only. I cross-posted my
reply to the root post in the ASP.NET group.

Jul 19 '05 #31

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.