«

Hi all, I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion with regards to
how/if outdated ASP.NET is.

ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a
great stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time
was jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on,
specifically ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the
positive effect open source now has on a framework.

Open source use to conjure memories of shotty shareware/freeware
programs on my first computer; a c64. Its completely different now,
instead of a few people at deciding what should be in the next version,
the community as a whole can effectively vote by choosing which modules
to use. I feel that this allows for some rapid evolution. If I dont like
what the asp.net framework is doing, or even try to understand why its
doing what its doing, I'm basically SOL; i just have to work around the
problem. Hell, I went through a lot of pain to figure out how to set up
my machine to debug through the framework in c#. Regardless, I cant just
change the framework as I see fit; and then post it to the community to
be told I'm a genius or stupid.

Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
far more expensive than other frameworks. It seems like there is a lot
of complexity to get ajax to work in the asp.net framework. This
complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not to mention there seems
to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which might be my fault due
to improper use).

Thoughts?

I don't think so for a few reasons.

ASP.NET has some sophisticated underpinnings: it asks that you become a
marginally competant programmer, understand objects/OO, and appreciate
abstraction. Forget newbie ease-of-use as a selling point: that's not
ASP.NET's forte. The ease of use comes later in careers, when you appreciate
ASP.NET's modularity, encapsulation, and ability to parameterize controls in
sophisticated ways. I'm doing a major collection of redesigns right now and
the ability to break down the whole problem into a bunch of more-or-less
self.contained user controls is just so cool.

Ruby on Rails is one ORM-ish framework that works well for a lot of people.
Once you understand OO reasonably well, and sort-of master a tool like
VS.NET, bolting on your own ORM framework and toolset is easy enough. I used
an ORM framework called dOOdads for awhile, and now a successor called
EntitySpaces that builts hierarchical "mappings" against your data
structures. Both are awesome. Neither were designed as a part of ASP.NET,
but the point is that the extensibility and flexibilty of the framework and
the sophistication of tools like VS.NET made it possible for someone to add
on ORM stuff in a useful way.

Another data point: look at tools like Telerik, Inc's control set for
ASP.NET. I haven't seen anything quite like them on any other web
application framework: they're brilliant. The ongoing development of
toolsets like Telerik's keeps the platform current.

Another data point: they put out the 2.0 release last year, which makes the
whole five-year-old discussion sort of moot. 2.0 added a lot of new stuff,
especially in terms of roles and personalization.

ASP.NET doesn't cost anything, I don't know where you got the idea it did.
Some more play may be in order.

-KF

"Joe (MCAD)" <joe_c_miguel-> wrote in message
news:bZFjh.52647$. net...

> Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX.

That's right.

> Correct me if I'm wrong here but its far more expensive than other
> frameworks.

Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
free. Similarly, if you don't need the "full" versions, Microsoft provides
"Express" versions of its development tools, also for free:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vwd/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...l/default.aspx

Obviously you will need a copy of Windows, preferably XP Pro, on which to
install them, and a copy of Windows Server on which to deploy any
application you create with them...

> It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
> asp.net framework.

Not at all - a couple of additional lines of code are usually all that's
required. Have a look at something like this: http://anthemdotnet.com/

"ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000"

--No, ASP.NET 2.0 is based on current framework and version 3.0 is already
available, circa 2006.


"The most important I feel is the positive effect open source now has on a
framework"

-- A quick look at sourceforge.net, Codeplex or google code reveals that
there is huge open-source support for the .NET Framework. There is also
strong community support from developers and users about what goes into the
framework. Just because the "product" isn't open source doesn't mean that
Microsoft does not listen to users.

Re AJAX, Microsoft invented it in 1998 - its properly referred to as "Remote
Scripting". Its really platform independent and relies on XMLHTTP Request
object that is now built into all modern browsers.

As Mark pointed out, there are numerous simplified "AJAX" Frameworks for
..NET, nobody is holding a gun to your head about which to use.

Currently, about 46% of the Fortune 1000 companies use .NET for enterprise
level applications. You could dispute the statistics as being biased, but the
fact remains this is a very successful platform with broad support and
innovation.

Peter




--
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net

Mark Rae wrote:
> "Joe (MCAD)" <joe_c_miguel-> wrote in message
> news:bZFjh.52647$. net...
>
>> Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX.
>
> That's right.
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong here but its far more expensive than other
>> frameworks.
>
> Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
> free. Similarly, if you don't need the "full" versions, Microsoft provides
> "Express" versions of its development tools, also for free:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vwd/
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...l/default.aspx

In terms of performance. Using the updatepanel... If we use the
viewstate (sometimes we dont have a choice) its sent on every ajax
request; big problem when your viewstate is 10k+ but the minimum
necessary is <1-2k. Makes sense having to always send the viewstate
since other server controls might have to fire off events. Thats the
next issue, the server has to process many other controls that
potentially have no interaction with the action that caused the request;
wasting processing time doing unnecessary rendering, and prerendering,
and databinding...


>> It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
>> asp.net framework.
>
> Not at all - a couple of additional lines of code are usually all that's
> required. Have a look at something like this: http://anthemdotnet.com/
>
>
Right, using the updatepanel is pretty easy, just a few lines of code.
But those few lines of code are doing something far more complex behind
the scene, and that comes at a cost.

> ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a great
> stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time was
> jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on, specifically
> ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the positive effect
> open source now has on a framework.

From a technical standpoint, I'm really not skilled enough to say.

But from a 'vibe' standpoint, yes, It seems that asp.net is outdated. But,
for that matter, I guess it seems that many of the systems are outdated by
that defnition.

If it's not open source, and not PHP or ROR, then it just doesn't have that
web 2.0 'vibe'.

> Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
> far more expensive than other frameworks.

ATLAS is free. ASP.net is free.

IIS isn't, of course.

> It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
> asp.net framework. This complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not
> to mention there seems to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which
> might be my fault due to improper use).

I think the big thing (and this is my impression) is that MS's framework is
all about integration.

IIS integrated with MSSQAL integrated with ASP.net integrated with VS.net
integrated with reporting services integrated with Sharepoint, etc.

They've built this great, robust system, and targeted it at enteprise
application developers.

And for that, I have to say, it works great.

But it's not as ideal for the next web2.0-I-hope-we-get-bought-by-google web
site for a number of reasons:

- it's heavy. ATLAS is a beast. Not a big deal on an intranet. Perhaps a
big deal on the web at large
- it's not free. Startups like free (as in open source)
- the community is a bit lopsided (mostly fellow entrprise software
devlopors)

So, yea, I guess I feel the same way. I feel a little bit out of the loop
sticking with ASP.net

-Darrel

> Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
> free.

That's a bit of a marketing myth.

You can't just 'run' the .net framwork.

Yea, it's free, but you need IIS. IIS is free, provided you've purchased
Windows.

The dev tools are nice. And are now increasingly free. But you still need a
licensed copy of Windows to run them.

So, compared to something like ROR or PHP, where you truly don't have to
spend money on any softwarew on either end (dev or serving) ASP.net isn't
truly the same level of 'free'.

-Darrel

> Currently, about 46% of the Fortune 1000 companies use .NET for enterprise
> level applications. You could dispute the statistics as being biased, but
> the
> fact remains this is a very successful platform with broad support and
> innovation.

I'm not arguing that there aren't innovative parts to ASP.net

However, I frown upon the 'market share = quality' line of reasoning so
often tossed about.

-Darrel

"darrel" <> wrote in message
news:...

>> Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
>> free.
>
> That's a bit of a marketing myth.
>
> You can't just 'run' the .net framwork.
>
> Yea, it's free, but you need IIS. IIS is free, provided you've purchased
> Windows.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...ASP%2eNET+Mono

> The dev tools are nice. And are now increasingly free. But you still need
> a licensed copy of Windows to run them.

That's true, though you may as well say that no software is *truly* free
because you still need a PC to run it on...

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 01:39:19 GMT, Joe (MCAD) wrote:

> Hi all, I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion with regards to
> how/if outdated ASP.NET is.

It's not.

> ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a
> great stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time
> was jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on,
> specifically ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the
> positive effect open source now has on a framework.

Ruby on Rails solves one specific problem pretty well, and that's the
situation where you really don't care about the data model. You just want
something to serialize your objects to and are willing to let the framework
do the work for you.

It's not quite so good (though certainly usable) for what 95% of the rest
of the web developers need (note web developers, not web designers) which
is the ability to map objects to a pre-defined and pre-architected data
model, often generations old. In effect, you lose all the 'neatness' of
RoR and are stuck with a framework that wasn't designed to meet your needs.

RoR has served it's purpose, though, and a number of third party Rails-like
projects have sprung up for various languages and platforms, including
ASP.NET. You can look at the Castle Project for a good example. It's also
shook Microsoft enough that they've developed their own ORM system in
Visual Studio Orcas (the next version), with a lot of ruby-like extensions
to C#. As more modern languages adopt RoR features, ruby will likely fall
into disuse, since it's a very special purpose language.

As for Open Source, there's plenty of third party open source .net projects
out there. The afore mentioned Castle project is one of them. And
understanding the framework is relatively easy when using any of the freely
available .net decompilers out there, like reflector.

> Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
> far more expensive than other frameworks. It seems like there is a lot
> of complexity to get ajax to work in the asp.net framework. This
> complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not to mention there seems
> to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which might be my fault due
> to improper use).

ASP.NET AJAX isn't the only AJAX solution out there. It's really designed
more for intranets than for lean web usage. One thing to remember is that
ASP.NET can be as lean or as complex as you want to make it.