Is ASP.NET really as good as they claim? (No, this isn't a troll, please read)

[Guest]

Allen,

I had the same experiance with the tutorials. I ended up going to the
bookstore and bought Stephen Walthers ASP.NET Unleashed Second Edition. ISBN:
0-672-32542-X. It realy speeded things up for me.

Abraham

 

[Guest]

Agreed, that is the root issue.

 

[Peter Blum]

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: (e-mail address removed)
Creator of "Professional Validation And More" at
http://www.peterblum.com/vam/home.aspx

 

[Guest]

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.

 

[Guest]

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]

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

 

[Kevin Spencer]

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]

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.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

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]

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

 

[Kevin Spencer]

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]

1) My comment that C# being a Java clone came from the fact that MS have a

That would be J#, NOT C#.

Good point, forgotten about J# ;-)