Penetration of ASP.NET - Developers continue to use VB6 & ASP

[dotnetforfood]

Joel Spolsky's new article "How Microsoft Lost the API War" at
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
describes how .NET has failed, how classic VB6 and ASP continue to be
preferred by developers, and how Microsoft has lost control of the
preferred API.

You really should read the article. Here are some excerpts:

<Joel Spolsky>
"And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.
Oh sure, some of them are..."

"instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess,
with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use
and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to
..NET.

"No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message
('just use .NET—trust us!'), most of their customers are still using
C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the
other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are
using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on
a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key
point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web."

"if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
'official' latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment,
WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to
support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely
stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a
slide from Microsoft labelled 'How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' and asks, 'Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer."

"So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got
..NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any
of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on
the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a
loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET
very deeply, and 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..."

"the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web
browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most
people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted
to develop almost every significant new application as a web
application.

Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web
applications don't require Windows.

It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course
they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the
brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in
their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared;
they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's
no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it
already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich
client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: 'Microsoft is betting
the company on the rich client.'"

"Much as I hate to say it, a huge chunk of developers have long since
moved to the web and refuse to move back. Most .NET developers are
ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server...None of
this bodes well for Microsoft and the profits it enjoyed thanks to its
API power. The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application
development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.
</Joel Spolsky>

The only sentence in the article that I disagree with is:
JS> "ASP.NET is brilliant; I've been working with web
JS> development for ten years and it's really just a
JS> generation ahead of everything out there."

Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead", but merely a
Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl modules available years ago
that:
- use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
- encrypt form data.

dotnetforfood

classic ASP rulez!!!

[Alvin Bruney [MVP]]

Dream on. There's a sucker born every minute.

It's an interesting article. quite frankly, it had me laughing. Much of it
is slight of hand though once you are acquainted with the facts on .NET
adoption in industry. Still it's very entertaining, rambles a bit, but you
would have to be mentally ill to think that .NET isn't here to stay.

For instance, productivity isn't by any means distilled down to memory
management. That's just crap. Syntactic structure and ease of use far outway
this. C++ is just a difficult language to master, and all of this difficulty
does not live in manual memory management, though a large part is about it.
It is just a difficult syntax period. There are too many ways to shoot
yourself in the foot even if you didn't play with memory.

Couple that with the fact that the web just isn't mature to do some tasks
and you would realize that the world is big enough to have desktop
programmers and web developers without causing chaos like the author opines.

--
Regards,
Alvin Bruney
[ASP.NET MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/default.aspx]
Got tidbits? Get it here... http://tinyurl.com/27cok
"dotnetforf ood" <do***********@ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...

Joel Spolsky's new article "How Microsoft Lost the API War" at
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
describes how .NET has failed, how classic VB6 and ASP continue to be
preferred by developers, and how Microsoft has lost control of the
preferred API.

You really should read the article. Here are some excerpts:

<Joel Spolsky>
"And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.
Oh sure, some of them are..."

"instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess,
with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use
and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to
.NET.

"No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message
('just use .NET-trust us!'), most of their customers are still using
C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the
other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are
using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on
a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key
point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web."

"if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
'official' latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment,
WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to
support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely
stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a
slide from Microsoft labelled 'How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' and asks, 'Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer."

"So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got
.NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any
of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on
the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a
loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET
very deeply, and 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..."

"the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web
browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most
people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted
to develop almost every significant new application as a web
application.

Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web
applications don't require Windows.

It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course
they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the
brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in
their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared;
they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's
no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it
already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich
client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: 'Microsoft is betting
the company on the rich client.'"

"Much as I hate to say it, a huge chunk of developers have long since
moved to the web and refuse to move back. Most .NET developers are
ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server...None of
this bodes well for Microsoft and the profits it enjoyed thanks to its
API power. The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application
development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.
</Joel Spolsky>

The only sentence in the article that I disagree with is:
JS> "ASP.NET is brilliant; I've been working with web
JS> development for ten years and it's really just a
JS> generation ahead of everything out there."

Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead", but merely a
Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl modules available years ago
that:
- use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
- encrypt form data.

dotnetforfood

classic ASP rulez!!!

[dlbjr]

Amen!

-dlbjr

Discerning resolutions for the alms

[Roland Hall]

I remember in 1991 when VB came out and how many said you couldn't really do
anything with it and how it had a short life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_...f_Visual_Basic

It's de ja vu all over again! (O:=

--
Roland Hall
/* This information is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
without any warranty; without even the implied warranty of merchantability
or fitness for a particular purpose. */
Technet Script Center - http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/
WSH 5.6 Documentation - http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/list/webdev.asp
MSDN Library - http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp
"dotnetforf ood" <do***********@ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...
: Joel Spolsky's new article "How Microsoft Lost the API War" at
: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
: describes how .NET has failed, how classic VB6 and ASP continue to be
: preferred by developers, and how Microsoft has lost control of the
: preferred API.
:
: You really should read the article. Here are some excerpts:
:
: <Joel Spolsky>
: "And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.
: Oh sure, some of them are..."
:
: "instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess,
: with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use
: and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to
: .NET.
:
: "No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message
: ('just use .NET-trust us!'), most of their customers are still using
: C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the
: other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are
: using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on
: a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key
: point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web."
:
: "if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
: 'official' latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment,
: WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to
: support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely
: stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a
: slide from Microsoft labelled 'How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and
: Avalon?' and asks, 'Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and
: Avalon?' A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer."
:
: "So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got
: .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any
: of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on
: the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a
: loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET
: very deeply, and 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..."
:
: "the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web
: browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most
: people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted
: to develop almost every significant new application as a web
: application.
:
: Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web
: applications don't require Windows.
:
: It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course
: they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the
: brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in
: their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared;
: they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's
: no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it
: already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich
: client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: 'Microsoft is betting
: the company on the rich client.'"
:
: "Much as I hate to say it, a huge chunk of developers have long since
: moved to the web and refuse to move back. Most .NET developers are
: ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server...None of
: this bodes well for Microsoft and the profits it enjoyed thanks to its
: API power. The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application
: development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.
: </Joel Spolsky>
:
: The only sentence in the article that I disagree with is:
: JS> "ASP.NET is brilliant; I've been working with web
: JS> development for ten years and it's really just a
: JS> generation ahead of everything out there."
:
: Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead", but merely a
: Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl modules available years ago
: that:
: - use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
: - encrypt form data.
:
: dotnetforfood
:
: classic ASP rulez!!!

[Ken Schaefer]

I have to question what Joel really knows about .NET.

I also have to question your knowledge as well.
: Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead",
: but merely a Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl
: modules available years ago that:
: - use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
: - encrypt form data.

Are you insane?

How do you do this in Classic ASP?

<%
If myCheckbox.Chec ked = True then
myTableRow.Visi ble = False
myCustomValidat or.Enabled = False
End If
%>

To do this you write a whole bunch of routine or classes yourself but you
still need to have various bits of ASP (at least placeholders) intespersed
in the HTML itself. ASP.NET gets away from all that by giving you an OO and
event-driven programming paradigm, something you don't get with Classic ASP

Cheers
Ken

"dotnetforf ood" <do***********@ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...
: Joel Spolsky's new article "How Microsoft Lost the API War" at
: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
: describes how .NET has failed, how classic VB6 and ASP continue to be
: preferred by developers, and how Microsoft has lost control of the
: preferred API.
:
: You really should read the article. Here are some excerpts:
:
: <Joel Spolsky>
: "And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.
: Oh sure, some of them are..."
:
: "instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess,
: with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use
: and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to
: .NET.
:
: "No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message
: ('just use .NET-trust us!'), most of their customers are still using
: C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the
: other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are
: using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on
: a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key
: point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web."
:
: "if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
: 'official' latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment,
: WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to
: support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely
: stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a
: slide from Microsoft labelled 'How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and
: Avalon?' and asks, 'Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and
: Avalon?' A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer."
:
: "So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got
: .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any
: of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on
: the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a
: loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET
: very deeply, and 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..."
:
: "the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web
: browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most
: people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted
: to develop almost every significant new application as a web
: application.
:
: Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web
: applications don't require Windows.
:
: It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course
: they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the
: brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in
: their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared;
: they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's
: no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it
: already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich
: client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: 'Microsoft is betting
: the company on the rich client.'"
:
: "Much as I hate to say it, a huge chunk of developers have long since
: moved to the web and refuse to move back. Most .NET developers are
: ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server...None of
: this bodes well for Microsoft and the profits it enjoyed thanks to its
: API power. The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application
: development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.
: </Joel Spolsky>
:
: The only sentence in the article that I disagree with is:
: JS> "ASP.NET is brilliant; I've been working with web
: JS> development for ten years and it's really just a
: JS> generation ahead of everything out there."
:
: Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead", but merely a
: Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl modules available years ago
: that:
: - use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
: - encrypt form data.
:
: dotnetforfood
:
: classic ASP rulez!!!

[Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]]

I read the article.
It's nothing more than one guy's rambling opinion.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://Steve.Orr.net
"dotnetforf ood" <do***********@ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...

Joel Spolsky's new article "How Microsoft Lost the API War" at
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
describes how .NET has failed, how classic VB6 and ASP continue to be
preferred by developers, and how Microsoft has lost control of the
preferred API.

You really should read the article. Here are some excerpts:

<Joel Spolsky>
"And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.
Oh sure, some of them are..."

"instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess,
with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use
and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to
.NET.

"No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message
('just use .NET-trust us!'), most of their customers are still using
C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the
other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are
using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on
a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key
point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web."

"if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
'official' latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment,
WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to
support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely
stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a
slide from Microsoft labelled 'How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' and asks, 'Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer."

"So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got
.NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any
of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on
the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a
loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET
very deeply, and 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..."

"the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web
browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most
people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted
to develop almost every significant new application as a web
application.

Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web
applications don't require Windows.

It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course
they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the
brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in
their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared;
they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's
no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it
already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich
client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: 'Microsoft is betting
the company on the rich client.'"

"Much as I hate to say it, a huge chunk of developers have long since
moved to the web and refuse to move back. Most .NET developers are
ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server...None of
this bodes well for Microsoft and the profits it enjoyed thanks to its
API power. The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application
development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.
</Joel Spolsky>

The only sentence in the article that I disagree with is:
JS> "ASP.NET is brilliant; I've been working with web
JS> development for ten years and it's really just a
JS> generation ahead of everything out there."

Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead", but merely a
Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl modules available years ago
that:
- use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
- encrypt form data.

dotnetforfood

classic ASP rulez!!!

[Kevin Spencer]

Opinions are like a**holes. Not only does everybody have one, but almost all
of them stink.
An opinion is a poor substitute for a fact.
In the absence of facts, avoid holding onto opinions. It might prevent you
from finding the facts later.

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

"dotnetforf ood" <do***********@ yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com...

Joel Spolsky's new article "How Microsoft Lost the API War" at
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
describes how .NET has failed, how classic VB6 and ASP continue to be
preferred by developers, and how Microsoft has lost control of the
preferred API.

You really should read the article. Here are some excerpts:

<Joel Spolsky>
"And yet, people aren't really using .NET much.
Oh sure, some of them are..."

"instead of .NET unifying and simplifying, we have a big 6-way mess,
with everybody trying to figure out which development strategy to use
and whether they can afford to port their existing applications to
.NET.

"No matter how consistent Microsoft is in their marketing message
('just use .NET-trust us!'), most of their customers are still using
C, C++, Visual Basic 6.0, and classic ASP, not to mention all the
other development tools from other companies. And the ones that are
using .NET are using ASP.NET to develop web applications, which run on
a Windows server but don't require Windows clients, which is a key
point I'll talk about more when I talk about the web."

"if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's
'official' latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment,
WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to
support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely
stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a
slide from Microsoft labelled 'How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' and asks, 'Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and
Avalon?' A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer."

"So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got
.NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any
of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on
the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a
loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET
very deeply, and 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..."

"the Web user interface is about 80% there, and even without new web
browsers we can probably get 95% there. This is Good Enough for most
people and it's certainly good enough for developers, who have voted
to develop almost every significant new application as a web
application.

Which means, suddenly, Microsoft's API doesn't matter so much. Web
applications don't require Windows.

It's not that Microsoft didn't notice this was happening. Of course
they did, and when the implications became clear, they slammed on the
brakes. Promising new technologies like HTAs and DHTML were stopped in
their tracks. The Internet Explorer team seems to have disappeared;
they have been completely missing in action for several years. There's
no way Microsoft is going to allow DHTML to get any better than it
already is: it's just too dangerous to their core business, the rich
client. The big meme at Microsoft these days is: 'Microsoft is betting
the company on the rich client.'"

"Much as I hate to say it, a huge chunk of developers have long since
moved to the web and refuse to move back. Most .NET developers are
ASP.NET developers, developing for Microsoft's web server...None of
this bodes well for Microsoft and the profits it enjoyed thanks to its
API power. The new API is HTML, and the new winners in the application
development marketplace will be the people who can make HTML sing.
</Joel Spolsky>

The only sentence in the article that I disagree with is:
JS> "ASP.NET is brilliant; I've been working with web
JS> development for ten years and it's really just a
JS> generation ahead of everything out there."

Whereas in my eyes ASP.NET is not a "generation ahead", but merely a
Microsoft rewrite of some well-known Perl modules available years ago
that:
- use templates to generate dynamic web pages and
- encrypt form data.

dotnetforfood

classic ASP rulez!!!

[dotnetforfood]

"Ken Schaefer" <ke*******@THIS adOpenStatic.co m> wrote in message news:<ON******* *******@TK2MSFT NGP10.phx.gbl>. ..

I have to question what Joel really knows about .NET.

How do you do this in Classic ASP?
<%
If myCheckbox.Chec ked = True then
myTableRow.Visi ble = False
myCustomValidat or.Enabled = False
End If
%>
One way:
<%
IF myCheckboxCheck ed = TRUE THEN
myTableRowVisib le = FALSE
myCustomValidat orEnabled = FALSE
END IF
%>
Hey, you already know the details!
To do this you write a whole bunch of routine or classes yourself but you
still need to have various bits of ASP (at least placeholders) intespersed
in the HTML itself. ASP.NET gets away from all that by giving you an OO and
event-driven programming paradigm, something you don't get with Classic ASP

And something that you don't really need. You .NET OOPers aren't yet
fully aware of Microsoft's latest moves. I'm not the only one who
thinks you don't need OOP (and event-driven architectures).
Microsoft's Don Box discusses how OOP is no longer useful at
http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-5148148.html :
"Moving developers away from the object-oriented world is a key
element of Microsoft's battle for mindshare with the likes of IBM, Sun
Microsystems, BEA Systems, Oracle and other rivals..."

According to Mr. Box:
"The ability for programs to communicate is a core tenet for the way
we want Longhorn to work," said Box. But, he said, object-oriented
programming is just not all it was made out to be. "What promised in
the '90s to be the most promising technology turned out not to be. By
the 1990s, no one disputed that we could make objects work as an
industry, but we got carried away with the metaphor. We naively said,
'This notion of objects that seems to pan out so well when writing
programs...shou ld work for communications between programs.'"
Read the article and weep for OOP.
..NET is little more than a set of templates combined with several
unnecessarily burdensome new OOP-oriented languages. The consistency
of these languages, manifest in the CLR, is of the sort characterized
by Ralph Waldo Emerson in his famous statement:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by
little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Microsoft has many "little minds." They need to learn to think outside
the Box.

dotnetforfood

[dlbjr]

Ouch! Someone needs their meds!

-dlbjr

Discerning resolutions for the alms

[dotnetforfood]

"Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]" <St***@Orr.ne t> wrote

It's nothing more than one guy's rambling opinion.

concerning Joel Spolsky's outstanding article "How Microsoft Lost the
API War"
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

After 5 days, Spolsky's "rambling opinion" is referenced by over 2500
sites. But only I am reading your (non-informative, boring,
uninteresting, empty, useless, wasted) post!-)

Whose opinions are respected: Spolsky's or yours?