«

X-No-Archive
How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?

Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP?

Blue Apricot

Blue Apricot wrote:
> X-No-Archive
> How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?
>
> Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP?
>
> Blue Apricot

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mic...82c6e2/?hl=en#

--
Mike Brind

ASP will most likely be available for a very long time, but there will be no
further development of the platform.

I think that you should start learning ASP.NET, not because ASP is getting
cold, but for the benefits of ASP.NET.

If you know ASP you have the benefit of knowing how to develop client-server
applications, but not much more than that. There are some similarities
between ASP and ASP.NET, but not very much considering how large the .NET
framework is. Also you should try to learn the ASP.NET way of building pages
and not stick to ASP practises.

Guffa wrote:

> Also you should try to learn the ASP.NET way of building pages
> and not stick to ASP practises.

Why not?

--
Mike Brind

"Mike Brind" wrote:

>
> Why not?
>

Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the executable code
in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be compiled and type safe.

When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags in the
markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to follow and
harder to maintain.

Guffa wrote:
> "Mike Brind" wrote:
>
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the
> executable code in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be
> compiled and type safe.
>
> When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags
> in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to
> follow and harder to maintain.


This still occurs in ASP.Net, especially in databound objects:
<asp:TextBox id="TextBox1" runat="server"
Text='<%# DataView1(0)("au_lname") %>'>
</asp:TextBox>




--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

Guffa wrote:
> "Mike Brind" wrote:
>
> >
> > Why not?
> >
>
> Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the executable code
> in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be compiled and type safe.
>
> When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags in the
> markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to follow and
> harder to maintain.

Exactly what Bob said. And the bit about making it easier for
designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I
know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the
thought of ploughing through all those server control tags,
EditItemTemplates etc.

For the vast majority of web applications, an OOP approach is overkill.
A web page typically executes in about half a second or less, and then
dies happily. You can use sessions, databases, text files or cookies
to maintain some kind of state between pages, but web applications are
not all about RAM-resident objects that might need to live for hours or
days, undergoing all kinds of changes in state.

Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well
crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than
those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be
comfortable with Code Behind.

And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an
aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted
script-based page. No one except the sysadmin will notice in the vast
majority of cases. Please note, I'm not talking about Yahoo or Ebay.
I'm talking about the huge number of B2B sites that have niche
audiences and page impression counts of less than 1 million a year,
which probably make up about 70% of all web sites.

Not that I have anything against ASP.NET. I'm learning it myself, but
if ASP is ever dumped by Microsoft, PHP is an equally valid alternative
for the kind of work I do.

Time to clamber off the soap box now.....

--
Mike Brind

"Bob Barrows [MVP]" wrote:

> Guffa wrote:
> > "Mike Brind" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >>
> >
> > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the
> > executable code in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be
> > compiled and type safe.
> >
> > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags
> > in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to
> > follow and harder to maintain.
>
>
> This still occurs in ASP.Net, especially in databound objects:
> <asp:TextBox id="TextBox1" runat="server"
> Text='<%# DataView1(0)("au_lname") %>'>
> </asp:TextBox>
>
>

Yes, it can be done that way. It can also be done from code-behind, keeping
that mess out of the markup.

A matter of taste, I give you. I like it clean, compiled, type checked,
layered and having as few surprises as possible.

> And the bit about making it easier for
> designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I
> know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the
> thought of ploughing through all those server control tags,
> EditItemTemplates etc.

I didn't say that, and I don't believe that either. Microsoft seems to be
coming with something that really could work in that respect, but so far I'd
like to keep the designers far away from the code.

Separating the code from the markup is for keeping the code easy to develop
and maintain.

> Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well
> crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than
> those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be
> comfortable with Code Behind.

That works fine when all the code is in the same file, but when half of the
code is in the html and half of it is in code-behind, it gets worse...

> And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an
> aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted
> script-based page.

It's not for the speed but for the stability.

I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to
ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream
compared to script programming. It's so much easier to write stable and
efficient code.

On 18 Apr 2006 20:52:15 -0700, "Blue Apricot" <>
wrote:
in < .com>

>X-No-Archive
>How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?
>
>Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP?
>
>Blue Apricot

Actually, the best advice I could offer would be to refactor it all in
PHP over Apache using PostgreSQL. The performance is awesome as in
~superior to asp~, the conversion time is minimal, and the cost is
nothing (FREE) but your time in order to see that I speak the ~truth~.

---
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and no guarantees either express or implied.

Stefan Berglund