ASP.NET v ASP v CGI - limitations

[Trevor Oakley]

I have just started using a book entitled "Teach Yourself C# Web
Programming" and I find C#/ASP.NET very easy and powerful. I am
learning C# and ASP.NET using this book. I also have Visual .NET
software.

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use
ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

I always found debugging ASP, and CGI very difficult. Sometimes
numerous attempts were needed to correct a simple error, because the
browser returned limited information.

ASP.NET, C# debugging seems very easy, since the browser prints out
the exact line, with a line number, and other error details, such as a
code number.

Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?

[Abhishek Srivastava]

> I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use

ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl. Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?
AFAIK, the acceptance of ASP.Net has been massive. check out this link :
http://www.microsoft.com/net/casestudies/

I know many very large scale projects which are not mentioned here.

Having said that, it is impossible that everyone will drop their
asp/jsp/cgi projects in favor of .Net (even though it is known that
ASP.Net is superior technology).

Projects are not done on a platform because "debugging is easy" or "IDE
is good". It is much more complex than that. If a company has spent
money in buying Unix hardware for USD 50K, then they cannot do ASP.Net
(debugging or good IDE makes no difference whatsoever)

Similarly even if someone has a ASP website but has no funding, then
they have to live with whatever they have.

Sometimes, the whole team is full of java programmers so jsp is chosen
even if they know that asp.net would take less time to develop.

or worst, your management makes a strategic-decision to move to
"websphere" . [don't ask me the logic of doing that many be somone tells
them that if they choose .net then mydoom virus will crash their mail
client or something]

So you see, technology is not the only factor is choosing a technology
for a project;-)

Non technical things like Cost, Present-Investment, legacy systems,
funding, and resources availability, [unscrupulous-marketing,
strategic-decisions, advise-of-consultants] play an important part in
technology selection for a product/project.

HTH.

regards,
Abhishek.

Trevor Oakley wrote:
I have just started using a book entitled "Teach Yourself C# Web
Programming" and I find C#/ASP.NET very easy and powerful. I am
learning C# and ASP.NET using this book. I also have Visual .NET
software.

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use
ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

I always found debugging ASP, and CGI very difficult. Sometimes
numerous attempts were needed to correct a simple error, because the
browser returned limited information.

ASP.NET, C# debugging seems very easy, since the browser prints out
the exact line, with a line number, and other error details, such as a
code number.

Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?

[Trevor Oakley]

"Abhishek Srivastava" <ab************ *****@nospam.ne t> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use
> ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

> Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
> indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
> which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
> commercial work?

AFAIK, the acceptance of ASP.Net has been massive. check out this link :
http://www.microsoft.com/net/casestudies/

I wish people posting in technical groups would so some basic research
before expressing a view. I wrote from a personal viewpoint, and why I find
ASP.NET and C# easy to use. My comments were aimed at the very large
community which writes small websites. In my daily contact I see a lot of
small websites. I rarely see aspx as I said.

I was more trying to know if aspx has weakness which is not obvious at first
sight. There are large limitations due to Flash for example, since indexing
the Flash information is difficult and until recently a plug in was needed.

Try this:

1. Goto google.com
2. enter asp
3. See 195 Million references
4. Repeat using aspx
5. See 15 Millions references
6. Use above method are see 432 Million HTM references and 10 Million (ASP
NET) - this eliminates duplicates in asp search.

However you look at it, ASPX presence on the Web (not corporate world) is
much less than html, asp etc.

Arguments about cost are not valid. The WWW was designed around a premise of
easy-to-use and free technology to aid growth. This is why html grew so
quickly. This is not related to the corporate world. The corporate world was
very slow even to use the Web. Companies like Microsoft were not involved at
all for years.

The business model around corporations and the Internet are different at the
moment to the actual Internet - since the Internet is mostly a free or low
cost medium. It would be like saying corporations control language - untrue
since language is free. But corporations do control movies, books, etc -
since there are high costs for them.

The advent of Overture and paid links may change the Internet and give the
corporate world more control.

I know many very large scale projects which are not mentioned here.

Having said that, it is impossible that everyone will drop their
asp/jsp/cgi projects in favor of .Net (even though it is known that
ASP.Net is superior technology).

Projects are not done on a platform because "debugging is easy" or "IDE
is good". It is much more complex than that. If a company has spent
money in buying Unix hardware for USD 50K, then they cannot do ASP.Net
(debugging or good IDE makes no difference whatsoever)

Similarly even if someone has a ASP website but has no funding, then
they have to live with whatever they have.

Sometimes, the whole team is full of java programmers so jsp is chosen
even if they know that asp.net would take less time to develop.

or worst, your management makes a strategic-decision to move to
"websphere" . [don't ask me the logic of doing that many be somone tells
them that if they choose .net then mydoom virus will crash their mail
client or something]

So you see, technology is not the only factor is choosing a technology
for a project;-)

Non technical things like Cost, Present-Investment, legacy systems,
funding, and resources availability, [unscrupulous-marketing,
strategic-decisions, advise-of-consultants] play an important part in
technology selection for a product/project.

HTH.

regards,
Abhishek.

Trevor Oakley wrote:

I have just started using a book entitled "Teach Yourself C# Web
Programming" and I find C#/ASP.NET very easy and powerful. I am
learning C# and ASP.NET using this book. I also have Visual .NET
software.

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use
ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

I always found debugging ASP, and CGI very difficult. Sometimes
numerous attempts were needed to correct a simple error, because the
browser returned limited information.

ASP.NET, C# debugging seems very easy, since the browser prints out
the exact line, with a line number, and other error details, such as a
code number.

Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?

[Abhishek Srivastava]

> 1. Goto google.com

2. enter asp
3. See 195 Million references
You don't understand how google works. If you search for google for
phrase ASP, then each web page which contains the text asp (gasp, aspire
etc etc etc) will be reported as a hit.

If you carefully followed the find of your own steps you will see
Metropolitan Museam of art newyork as one hit even though it has nothing
to do with asp or aspx!!

when you search aspx this will not happen because aspx appears in less
english words. Arguments about cost are not valid. The WWW was designed around a
premise of easy-to-use and free technology to aid growth.
Even if technology is free programmers, infrastructure, management etc
is not free. Just because .Net SDK came free of cost didn't mean that
cost is not a parameter in the solution.

regards,
Abhishek.

Trevor Oakley wrote:
"Abhishek Srivastava" <ab************ *****@nospam.ne t> wrote in message
news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. ..

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use

> ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

> Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
> indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
> which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
> commercial work?

AFAIK, the acceptance of ASP.Net has been massive. check out this link :
http://www.microsoft.com/net/casestudies/

I wish people posting in technical groups would so some basic research
before expressing a view. I wrote from a personal viewpoint, and why I find
ASP.NET and C# easy to use. My comments were aimed at the very large
community which writes small websites. In my daily contact I see a lot of
small websites. I rarely see aspx as I said.

I was more trying to know if aspx has weakness which is not obvious at first
sight. There are large limitations due to Flash for example, since indexing
the Flash information is difficult and until recently a plug in was needed.

Try this:

1. Goto google.com
2. enter asp
3. See 195 Million references
4. Repeat using aspx
5. See 15 Millions references
6. Use above method are see 432 Million HTM references and 10 Million (ASP
NET) - this eliminates duplicates in asp search.

However you look at it, ASPX presence on the Web (not corporate world) is
much less than html, asp etc.

Arguments about cost are not valid. The WWW was designed around a premise of
easy-to-use and free technology to aid growth. This is why html grew so
quickly. This is not related to the corporate world. The corporate world was
very slow even to use the Web. Companies like Microsoft were not involved at
all for years.

The business model around corporations and the Internet are different at the
moment to the actual Internet - since the Internet is mostly a free or low
cost medium. It would be like saying corporations control language - untrue
since language is free. But corporations do control movies, books, etc -
since there are high costs for them.

The advent of Overture and paid links may change the Internet and give the
corporate world more control.

I know many very large scale projects which are not mentioned here.

Having said that, it is impossible that everyone will drop their
asp/jsp/cgi projects in favor of .Net (even though it is known that
ASP.Net is superior technology).

Projects are not done on a platform because "debugging is easy" or "IDE
is good". It is much more complex than that. If a company has spent
money in buying Unix hardware for USD 50K, then they cannot do ASP.Net
(debugging or good IDE makes no difference whatsoever)

Similarly even if someone has a ASP website but has no funding, then
they have to live with whatever they have.

Sometimes, the whole team is full of java programmers so jsp is chosen
even if they know that asp.net would take less time to develop.

or worst, your management makes a strategic-decision to move to
"websphere" . [don't ask me the logic of doing that many be somone tells
them that if they choose .net then mydoom virus will crash their mail
client or something]

So you see, technology is not the only factor is choosing a technology
for a project;-)

Non technical things like Cost, Present-Investment, legacy systems,
funding, and resources availability, [unscrupulous-marketing,
strategic-decisions, advise-of-consultants] play an important part in
technology selection for a product/project.

HTH.

regards,
Abhishek.

Trevor Oakley wrote:

I have just started using a book entitled "Teach Yourself C# Web
Programmin g" and I find C#/ASP.NET very easy and powerful. I am
learning C# and ASP.NET using this book. I also have Visual .NET
software.

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use
ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

I always found debugging ASP, and CGI very difficult. Sometimes
numerous attempts were needed to correct a simple error, because the
browser returned limited information.

ASP.NET, C# debugging seems very easy, since the browser prints out
the exact line, with a line number, and other error details, such as a
code number.

Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?

[Kevin Spencer]

> Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine

indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?
None.

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
Big things are made up
of lots of little things.

"Trevor Oakley" <sa***@trevoroa kley.com> wrote in message
news:fc******** *************** ***@posting.goo gle.com... I have just started using a book entitled "Teach Yourself C# Web
Programming" and I find C#/ASP.NET very easy and powerful. I am
learning C# and ASP.NET using this book. I also have Visual .NET
software.

I wonder why C#/ASP.NET is not more widely used. Most sites I see use
ASP, or HTML, sometimes PHP, and older ones still use CGI/Perl.

I always found debugging ASP, and CGI very difficult. Sometimes
numerous attempts were needed to correct a simple error, because the
browser returned limited information.

ASP.NET, C# debugging seems very easy, since the browser prints out
the exact line, with a line number, and other error details, such as a
code number.

Are there problems with ASPX pages, in terms of search engine
indexing, browser functions, server memory issues, or anything else
which makes the framework, and the C# language unsuitable for
commercial work?