Hello,
This is NOT a troll, it's a genuine question. Please read right
through to see why.
I have been using Vusual Basic and Classic ASP for some years, and
have now started looking at ASP.NET. At first glance, it looks
excellent, albeit nothing that couldn't have been done to Classic ASP.
I have been through a few tutorials and was impressed with how quickly
you can get database info onto a page.
What worries me is if it really is as good as it looks. Some years
ago, MS tried to persuade VB programmers to get into writing web sites
by introducing Web Classes to VB. These looked, at first glance, like
a really quick and easy way to code a web site. The universal opinion
on them was that they were awful when you tried to get anything real
done with them. You spent so much time fighting with the system that
you would have been quicker doing it by hand in the first place.
Same thing happened when MS introduced the Data Environment into VB.
Again, this was supposed to be a RAD tool for getting database-based
apps up quickly. The first impressions were very favourable, but you
quickly found yourself writing more code to fight the system than you
would have done by doing it all by hand in the first place.
There are other examples, but I think the point is clear. That which
appears to be a fantastic way to code initially may turn out to be a
coding nightmare when you try and take the second steps.
So, is ASP.NET the same, or have MS finally got it right? My first
impression is that is it great and could save a lot of time. Trouble
is, I can almost feel myself going back a few years to when I first
tried the Data Environment. That's what worries me, am I going to
start with it and then find it's more bother than it's worth?
Do people do professional sites in ASP.NET and still think it's good?
Maybe this is the wrong place to ask as anyone who hated it and gave
up probably wouldn't be reading here, but I would still like some
reassurance that my time is going to be invested well if I learn
ASP.NET. Given my extensive code library, built up over a number of
years, I can get db-driven web sites up in Classic ASP quite quickly.
I'm not going to drop that unless I know the alternative is a genuine
improvement.
As I said at the start, this is a genuine question, not a troll.
Please reply appropriately. TIA
Nov 19 '05
59 4904
mrmac presents two browser related issues: client-side validation and HTML
formatting that differs. Both can be addressed.
1. Client-side validation.
Microsoft made a decision to create their client-side validation code
according to their DHTML standard, used by IE and IE/Mac but not Mozilla
(which follows the W3C standard).
Microsoft in general has not made the most feature rich web controls. There
are many reasons for it:
- They have a very large variety of classes and technologies to build. So
they deliver usable a TextBox control without neat features like using
javascript to filter out unwanted keystrokes. In ASP.NET 2.0, they are
introducing many new web controls with some good features although still,
users will find limitations in them.
- They have built this system using OOP technology. Its designed for
expansion. (Javascript on the other hand is not really OOP and their
client-side validation code is not expandable without directly editing their
scripts.)
- They know that third parties will fill in the gaps (provide an enhanced
textbox with filtering keystrokes - I do this in my Professional Validation
And More product).
I am a third party control developer. I have built a significantly better
validator system for ASP.NET, "Professional Validation And More"
( http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx). It has 22 validators that support
IE, IE/Mac, Mozilla, FireFox, Netscape7, Opera 7 and Safari. It has a lot of
new features people ask for that Microsoft isn't delivering (because of the
reasons I listed above).
2. Formatting is incorrect.
ASP.NET has a system called "BrowserCapabilities" that describes the
featureset of each browser. The issue is that Microsoft did not define
BrowserCapabilities for all of the modern browsers. (You will find them in
machine.config.) Its up to you to define them. However, there is a very
quick way to make all browsers use the same HTML. Set <@ Page
clientTarget="upLevel" >.
--- Peter Blum www.PeterBlum.com
Email: PL****@PeterBlum.com
Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx
"ARt" <AR*@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CB**********************************@microsof t.com... I think the reason the validator controls don't work in all browsers the same way is because the validators generate client-side javascript to do what you ask of the control. As with all clientside javascript you need to test with all the browsers you plan to support. This is not necessarily an asp.net issue.
"mrmac" wrote:
Actually, most controls are handled well across browsers. Where I've had problems is in Safari mostly. (I work in education and those people really like macs.) But we have found that some things that work great in IE need some help in other browsers. Example: Validators sometimes are not fired in all browsers as you tab thru controls because of how javascript is generated, so it is important to use the "CausesValidation="true"" attribute for submit buttons. Also, text boxes are displayed fine in IE when a width attribute is specified, but in firefox you also need to specify the columns attribute. So maybe I'm a bit picky on this, but probably all this means is to test your ASP.net pages in multiple browsers. In summary, all the asp.net controls work, but not all asp.net controls work "as advertised" in other browsers.
I have had problems with the cross browser rendering of pages, especially
when using a panel control. Seems that Net tries to render tables rather then
divisons for layout on most browsers besides IE. Makes a big mess sometimes.
The siszing for text boxes is also not rendered correctly on NS, and other
things. Nothing really hard to fix, like with ASP Classic.
"Alan Silver" wrote: Alan, Your article mentions a comparison between asp and asp.net. Regarding that, I'd count it as a vast improvement. My top 2 reasons are more valid error trapping, and validators. Those two things alone, would make a change to asp.net valid. On the cautious side, browser compatability can be hard to maintain for some controls and we choose not to implement them.
Such as what? All that I've read said that browser capabilities were carefully handled by the ASP.NET system. It sounded too good to be true, but I hadn't seen anyone discuss it more.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Alan,
I'm repeating what many have said but want to add my two cents.
I'm on my third ASP.NET project and find it far superior to the old ASP
methods. I have the following cautions however:
1) On two of my projects I have worked with people making the transistion
from VB to VB.NET and found that they would have been better off going to C#.
The reason is that they continually think of it as a structured language and
ignore the OO which they would have, most likely, learned by changing the
language.
2) Do not limit yourself to ASP.NET since another very key factor is the
ADO.NET. This has been as great a boon to the development as the ASP.NET.
3) Be careful of the RAD attitude. I have often found people thinking that
a RAD application is a deliverable. This really is not the case but does
provide a starting point for proof of concept and direction of development.
As an example RAD can deliver a page with data bound controls but in many
cases the true development would require new controls to be developed along
with a Bussiness/Data Layer.....Both of which are usual ignored in the RAD.
Bottom line is that this is a great improvement as long as the developer is
interested in learning and stays focused on the long term not just the short
term. At this time I would have trouble going back to the old ASP .
"Alan Silver" wrote: Hello,
This is NOT a troll, it's a genuine question. Please read right through to see why.
I have been using Vusual Basic and Classic ASP for some years, and have now started looking at ASP.NET. At first glance, it looks excellent, albeit nothing that couldn't have been done to Classic ASP. I have been through a few tutorials and was impressed with how quickly you can get database info onto a page.
What worries me is if it really is as good as it looks. Some years ago, MS tried to persuade VB programmers to get into writing web sites by introducing Web Classes to VB. These looked, at first glance, like a really quick and easy way to code a web site. The universal opinion on them was that they were awful when you tried to get anything real done with them. You spent so much time fighting with the system that you would have been quicker doing it by hand in the first place.
Same thing happened when MS introduced the Data Environment into VB. Again, this was supposed to be a RAD tool for getting database-based apps up quickly. The first impressions were very favourable, but you quickly found yourself writing more code to fight the system than you would have done by doing it all by hand in the first place.
There are other examples, but I think the point is clear. That which appears to be a fantastic way to code initially may turn out to be a coding nightmare when you try and take the second steps.
So, is ASP.NET the same, or have MS finally got it right? My first impression is that is it great and could save a lot of time. Trouble is, I can almost feel myself going back a few years to when I first tried the Data Environment. That's what worries me, am I going to start with it and then find it's more bother than it's worth?
Do people do professional sites in ASP.NET and still think it's good? Maybe this is the wrong place to ask as anyone who hated it and gave up probably wouldn't be reading here, but I would still like some reassurance that my time is going to be invested well if I learn ASP.NET. Given my extensive code library, built up over a number of years, I can get db-driven web sites up in Classic ASP quite quickly. I'm not going to drop that unless I know the alternative is a genuine improvement.
As I said at the start, this is a genuine question, not a troll. Please reply appropriately. TIA
>Alan, I'm repeating what many have said but want to add my two cents.
They are welcome, see comments below ...
I'm on my third ASP.NET project and find it far superior to the old ASP methods. I have the following cautions however:
1) On two of my projects I have worked with people making the transistion from VB to VB.NET and found that they would have been better off going to C#. The reason is that they continually think of it as a structured language and ignore the OO which they would have, most likely, learned by changing the language.
I have already decided to go with C# for a few reasons, one of which is
this very one. Another is that I did some Java a few years ago and liked
it, and seeing as C# is a Java-clone, it looks attractive. Also, since
MS use C# internally, I have more confidence that they will stick with
it. Along with many other VB developers, I was pretty disgusted with the
way MS dumped us with the move to .NET. I don't want to let that happen
again.
2) Do not limit yourself to ASP.NET since another very key factor is the ADO.NET. This has been as great a boon to the development as the ASP.NET.
Not sure exactly what you mean here, probably 'cos I've not really got
far enough into the database side of things to see the best way to go
about it. It's a bit frustrating because that is the most important part
in many ways, but you need to learn the basics first.
Could you show some examples of what you mean? Short code snippets maybe
showing the ADO.NET way and the other. That would help me understand.
3) Be careful of the RAD attitude. I have often found people thinking that a RAD application is a deliverable. This really is not the case but does provide a starting point for proof of concept and direction of development. As an example RAD can deliver a page with data bound controls but in many cases the true development would require new controls to be developed along with a Bussiness/Data Layer.....Both of which are usual ignored in the RAD.
Ah, this was exactly the purpose of my original question. I have seen
several RAD tools introduced and they ended up being more work than
coding by hand. I was mainly interested in seeing if people really do
stick with them when they get past the beginner stage and get into real
site production. You confirm my suspicions that hand-rolled is probably
better.
Bottom line is that this is a great improvement as long as the developer is interested in learning and stays focused on the long term not just the short term. At this time I would have trouble going back to the old ASP .
I am interested in learning, and I want to learn good solid practices
from the start. I have no interest in RAD tools if they aren't up to the
serious work. I'm not doing this as a hobby, it's my living. I want to
get it right from the start.
Thanks for the reply, it's been very interesting. If you could supply
some sample code to show what you mean about ADO.NET it would be even
better ;-)
ta ra
alan
"Alan Silver" wrote:
Hello,
This is NOT a troll, it's a genuine question. Please read right through to see why.
I have been using Vusual Basic and Classic ASP for some years, and have now started looking at ASP.NET. At first glance, it looks excellent, albeit nothing that couldn't have been done to Classic ASP. I have been through a few tutorials and was impressed with how quickly you can get database info onto a page.
What worries me is if it really is as good as it looks. Some years ago, MS tried to persuade VB programmers to get into writing web sites by introducing Web Classes to VB. These looked, at first glance, like a really quick and easy way to code a web site. The universal opinion on them was that they were awful when you tried to get anything real done with them. You spent so much time fighting with the system that you would have been quicker doing it by hand in the first place.
Same thing happened when MS introduced the Data Environment into VB. Again, this was supposed to be a RAD tool for getting database-based apps up quickly. The first impressions were very favourable, but you quickly found yourself writing more code to fight the system than you would have done by doing it all by hand in the first place.
There are other examples, but I think the point is clear. That which appears to be a fantastic way to code initially may turn out to be a coding nightmare when you try and take the second steps.
So, is ASP.NET the same, or have MS finally got it right? My first impression is that is it great and could save a lot of time. Trouble is, I can almost feel myself going back a few years to when I first tried the Data Environment. That's what worries me, am I going to start with it and then find it's more bother than it's worth?
Do people do professional sites in ASP.NET and still think it's good? Maybe this is the wrong place to ask as anyone who hated it and gave up probably wouldn't be reading here, but I would still like some reassurance that my time is going to be invested well if I learn ASP.NET. Given my extensive code library, built up over a number of years, I can get db-driven web sites up in Classic ASP quite quickly. I'm not going to drop that unless I know the alternative is a genuine improvement.
As I said at the start, this is a genuine question, not a troll. Please reply appropriately. TIA
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
> it, and seeing as C# is a Java-clone, it looks attractive. Also, since
Exsqueeze me? Java's syntax was developed AFTER C and C++, and was designed
to look like C. NOT the other way around.
If you want to use C#, it would behoove you to know at least C, unless you
just want to be a VB developer who uses a different syntax. Unfortunately,
there are quite a few of them out there now. Learning C will also make you a
much more powerful developer overall.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx> wrote in message
news:ym**************@nospamthankyou.spam... Alan,
I'm repeating what many have said but want to add my two cents.
They are welcome, see comments below ...
I'm on my third ASP.NET project and find it far superior to the old ASP methods. I have the following cautions however:
1) On two of my projects I have worked with people making the transistion from VB to VB.NET and found that they would have been better off going to C#. The reason is that they continually think of it as a structured language and ignore the OO which they would have, most likely, learned by changing the language.
I have already decided to go with C# for a few reasons, one of which is this very one. Another is that I did some Java a few years ago and liked it, and seeing as C# is a Java-clone, it looks attractive. Also, since MS use C# internally, I have more confidence that they will stick with it. Along with many other VB developers, I was pretty disgusted with the way MS dumped us with the move to .NET. I don't want to let that happen again.
2) Do not limit yourself to ASP.NET since another very key factor is the ADO.NET. This has been as great a boon to the development as the ASP.NET.
Not sure exactly what you mean here, probably 'cos I've not really got far enough into the database side of things to see the best way to go about it. It's a bit frustrating because that is the most important part in many ways, but you need to learn the basics first.
Could you show some examples of what you mean? Short code snippets maybe showing the ADO.NET way and the other. That would help me understand.
3) Be careful of the RAD attitude. I have often found people thinking that a RAD application is a deliverable. This really is not the case but does provide a starting point for proof of concept and direction of development. As an example RAD can deliver a page with data bound controls but in many cases the true development would require new controls to be developed along with a Bussiness/Data Layer.....Both of which are usual ignored in the RAD.
Ah, this was exactly the purpose of my original question. I have seen several RAD tools introduced and they ended up being more work than coding by hand. I was mainly interested in seeing if people really do stick with them when they get past the beginner stage and get into real site production. You confirm my suspicions that hand-rolled is probably better.
Bottom line is that this is a great improvement as long as the developer is interested in learning and stays focused on the long term not just the short term. At this time I would have trouble going back to the old ASP .
I am interested in learning, and I want to learn good solid practices from the start. I have no interest in RAD tools if they aren't up to the serious work. I'm not doing this as a hobby, it's my living. I want to get it right from the start.
Thanks for the reply, it's been very interesting. If you could supply some sample code to show what you mean about ADO.NET it would be even better ;-)
ta ra
alan
"Alan Silver" wrote:
Hello,
This is NOT a troll, it's a genuine question. Please read right through to see why.
I have been using Vusual Basic and Classic ASP for some years, and have now started looking at ASP.NET. At first glance, it looks excellent, albeit nothing that couldn't have been done to Classic ASP. I have been through a few tutorials and was impressed with how quickly you can get database info onto a page.
What worries me is if it really is as good as it looks. Some years ago, MS tried to persuade VB programmers to get into writing web sites by introducing Web Classes to VB. These looked, at first glance, like a really quick and easy way to code a web site. The universal opinion on them was that they were awful when you tried to get anything real done with them. You spent so much time fighting with the system that you would have been quicker doing it by hand in the first place.
Same thing happened when MS introduced the Data Environment into VB. Again, this was supposed to be a RAD tool for getting database-based apps up quickly. The first impressions were very favourable, but you quickly found yourself writing more code to fight the system than you would have done by doing it all by hand in the first place.
There are other examples, but I think the point is clear. That which appears to be a fantastic way to code initially may turn out to be a coding nightmare when you try and take the second steps.
So, is ASP.NET the same, or have MS finally got it right? My first impression is that is it great and could save a lot of time. Trouble is, I can almost feel myself going back a few years to when I first tried the Data Environment. That's what worries me, am I going to start with it and then find it's more bother than it's worth?
Do people do professional sites in ASP.NET and still think it's good? Maybe this is the wrong place to ask as anyone who hated it and gave up probably wouldn't be reading here, but I would still like some reassurance that my time is going to be invested well if I learn ASP.NET. Given my extensive code library, built up over a number of years, I can get db-driven web sites up in Classic ASP quite quickly. I'm not going to drop that unless I know the alternative is a genuine improvement.
As I said at the start, this is a genuine question, not a troll. Please reply appropriately. TIA
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
>> it, and seeing as C# is a Java-clone, it looks attractive. Also, since Exsqueeze me? Java's syntax was developed AFTER C and C++, and was designed to look like C. NOT the other way around.
I don't think you read my comment right, I said C# (NOT C or C++) was a
Java clone. Java itself is a C++ clone. C# wasn't even thought of when
Java was already making the news.
If you want to use C#, it would behoove you to know at least C, unless you just want to be a VB developer who uses a different syntax. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them out there now. Learning C will also make you a much more powerful developer overall.
I do know a bit of C. Not a huge amount, but enough to get me by with
simple programs. I have also got a reasonable, though rusty, background
in Java. I am intending to learn C# properly, not just play with it.
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
C# is NOT a Java Clone. It is an extension of C++, just as C++ is an
extension of C. C is the most extensible programming language in the world.
Note that the "#" symbol can be interpreted as 2 "+" symbols intersecting.
C# is C++++.
And Java is not a C++ clone. It simply uses the same (or similar) syntax.
Other than that, it is almost NOTHING like C++. For example, you can't use
pointers in Java. Pointers are practically essential to using C++. I could
go on, talk about memory management, etc., but I hope you get my drift.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx> wrote in message
news:Td**************@nospamthankyou.spam... it, and seeing as C# is a Java-clone, it looks attractive. Also, since
Exsqueeze me? Java's syntax was developed AFTER C and C++, and was designed to look like C. NOT the other way around.
I don't think you read my comment right, I said C# (NOT C or C++) was a Java clone. Java itself is a C++ clone. C# wasn't even thought of when Java was already making the news.
If you want to use C#, it would behoove you to know at least C, unless you just want to be a VB developer who uses a different syntax. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them out there now. Learning C will also make you a much more powerful developer overall.
I do know a bit of C. Not a huge amount, but enough to get me by with simple programs. I have also got a reasonable, though rusty, background in Java. I am intending to learn C# properly, not just play with it.
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
>C# is NOT a Java Clone. It is an extension of C++, just as C++ is an extension of C. C is the most extensible programming language in the world. Note that the "#" symbol can be interpreted as 2 "+" symbols intersecting. C# is C++++.
And Java is not a C++ clone. It simply uses the same (or similar) syntax. Other than that, it is almost NOTHING like C++. For example, you can't use pointers in Java. Pointers are practically essential to using C++. I could go on, talk about memory management, etc., but I hope you get my drift.
OK, two points spring to mind ...
1) My comment that C# being a Java clone came from the fact that MS have
a very strong reason for wanting to oust Java. Producing a language that
is close enough for Java programmers to pick up was a very clever
marketing trick. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not alone in that view.
2) As far as Java itself is concerned, I seem to remember reading that
the original intent of Java was to produce a C++ type of language that
had the power without the complexity. It was very closely modelled on
C++, but was worked to avoid such nasties as pointers, which were
generally felt to be more trouble than they were worth. This is not my
opinion, this is what I heard from Java experts, including Sun people,
when Java first hit the big time. Maybe you heard differently ;-)
either way, it was really only a flippant comment. My point was that,
having done (and liked) some Java, C# is close enough to attract me.
Ta ra
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
> 1) My comment that C# being a Java clone came from the fact that MS have a very strong reason for wanting to oust Java. Producing a language that is close enough for Java programmers to pick up was a very clever marketing trick. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not alone in that view.
That would be J#, NOT C#.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Neither a follower nor a lender be.
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx> wrote in message
news:Gt**************@nospamthankyou.spam... C# is NOT a Java Clone. It is an extension of C++, just as C++ is an extension of C. C is the most extensible programming language in the world. Note that the "#" symbol can be interpreted as 2 "+" symbols intersecting. C# is C++++.
And Java is not a C++ clone. It simply uses the same (or similar) syntax. Other than that, it is almost NOTHING like C++. For example, you can't use pointers in Java. Pointers are practically essential to using C++. I could go on, talk about memory management, etc., but I hope you get my drift.
OK, two points spring to mind ...
1) My comment that C# being a Java clone came from the fact that MS have a very strong reason for wanting to oust Java. Producing a language that is close enough for Java programmers to pick up was a very clever marketing trick. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not alone in that view.
2) As far as Java itself is concerned, I seem to remember reading that the original intent of Java was to produce a C++ type of language that had the power without the complexity. It was very closely modelled on C++, but was worked to avoid such nasties as pointers, which were generally felt to be more trouble than they were worth. This is not my opinion, this is what I heard from Java experts, including Sun people, when Java first hit the big time. Maybe you heard differently ;-)
either way, it was really only a flippant comment. My point was that, having done (and liked) some Java, C# is close enough to attract me.
Ta ra
-- Alan Silver (anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
>> 1) My comment that C# being a Java clone came from the fact that MS have a very strong reason for wanting to oust Java. Producing a language that is close enough for Java programmers to pick up was a very clever marketing trick. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not alone in that view.
That would be J#, NOT C#.
Good point, forgotten about J# ;-)
--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me) This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Randall Smith |
last post by:
I've been programming in Python for about 2 years. I think it offers
the best combination of simplicity and power of any language I have
explored. As I write more and larger and complex programs,...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| | |