ASP.NET vs Silverlight?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Artificer, Jun 14, 2008.

  1. Artificer

    Artificer Guest

    Any idea if MS will try to promote Silverlight over ASP.NET for web
    development or will silverlight remain just as a adobe's flash like
    tecnology?
    Artificer, Jun 14, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Artificer

    Munna Guest

    On Jun 14, 10:28 pm, Artificer <> wrote:
    > Any idea if MS will try to promote Silverlight over ASP.NET for web
    > development or will silverlight remain just as a adobe's flash like
    > tecnology?


    Hi,

    I think

    Silverlight is the next generation RIA (Rich internet application)
    supporting very developer friendly environment ... more over besides
    the powerful support of Graphics device we can write programs with our
    favorite c# and xaml...

    As for asp.net i think it will remain on track ...

    Munna
    Munna, Jun 14, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. A bit of both.

    There are some applications that will work well with adding a movie (or
    similar) in them, ala Flash. Other applications will be better as 100%
    Silverlight.

    --
    Gregory A. Beamer
    MVP, MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

    Subscribe to my blog
    http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com/lists/feed.rss

    or just read it:
    http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com/

    *************************************************
    | Think outside the box!
    |
    *************************************************
    "Artificer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Any idea if MS will try to promote Silverlight over ASP.NET for web
    > development or will silverlight remain just as a adobe's flash like
    > tecnology?
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\), Jun 14, 2008
    #3
  4. re:
    !> Any idea if MS will try to promote Silverlight over ASP.NET for web
    !> development or will silverlight remain just as a adobe's flash like tecnology?

    I fail to see what Silverlight adds to a data-driven ASP.NET application.

    Silverlight is for presenting streaming media and Rich Interactive Applications(RIA) for the web.
    If you don't use streaming media...you don't need Silverlight.

    Silverlight doesn't require ASP.NET to be used on the web-server.
    You could use Silverlight with PHP on Linux if you wanted to.





    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Artificer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Any idea if MS will try to promote Silverlight over ASP.NET for web
    > development or will silverlight remain just as a adobe's flash like
    > tecnology?
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 14, 2008
    #4
  5. "Artificer" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Any idea if MS will try to promote Silverlight over ASP.NET for web
    > development or will silverlight remain just as a adobe's flash like
    > tecnology?


    ASP.NET forms may still have a role to play in the public web space where
    simple forms are needed. However for more extensive UIs and for intranet
    applications I think Silverlight is going to be big, real big.

    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    Anthony Jones, Jun 14, 2008
    #5
  6. "Blackhand" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I hardly think Silverlight will replace ASP.Net, because truly rich

    applications
    > can be developed using them in conjunction with each other.
    >
    > It also needs to be taken into account that most people don't like

    installing
    > plugins in their browser, so large scale uptake will be slow.
    >
    > Personally I would still prefer to do back office applications without
    > Silverlight. Myself and the other seniors at our company still aren't
    > particularly thrilled with Silverlight.
    >
    > Silverlight 2.0 will likely be a big thing, like LINQ to SQL, until people

    start
    > using it in enterprise applications and start taking all the extra

    implications
    > into account.
    >



    I was speaking to the future, I wasn't suggesting that Silverlight is ready
    now. However with a stronger control framework a future Silverlight will be
    very compelling.

    Simply put HTML is just not the right platform to deliver a UI (as opposed
    to displaying content). The use of HTML in this way was forced on to users
    by IT departments trying to regain control of applications delvered to users
    and by woefully inadequate means of centrally managing what is installed on
    PCs.

    The continued focus of those developing the HTML standard and the related
    CSS standard is content delivery with only a secondary nod to UI. The fact
    is though that a UI developer wants a much finer control over the
    presentation whereas the HTML/CSS committees are going in the other
    direction, trying to separate content from presentation.

    This means that UI developer often has to wrestle HTML into doing what is
    needed. That's not to mention that various browsers don't always interpret
    the same HTML/CSS in the same way. Yes ASP.NET does help reduce that
    significantly by insulating the developer somewhat but it can never be
    complete and it still doesn't fix the fact that the underlying technology
    isn't properly suited to the task.

    Having a sandbox on the client which has few external dependacies running
    code written in C# that does what you ask it to, is over time, going to be
    prefered to struggling with HTML based UIs. This is of course an my own
    conjectured opinion and depends a great deal on whether a usable control
    framework appears in Silverlight.

    In the wider world of the public web where, as you say, some users are loath
    to install additional components Silverlight may not have as much impact.
    It already has established competitors which are fairly ubiquitous.


    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    Anthony Jones, Jun 15, 2008
    #6
  7. re:
    !> Simply put HTML is just not the right platform to deliver a UI (as opposed to displaying content).

    If you mean a *Rich User Interface* or *Rich Interactive Applications*,
    I agree, but there's a lot of adequate HTML-based UI's on the web now.

    If there's a need for visual demonstrations, Silverlight/Flash can't be beat,
    and Silverlight certainly does a lot more than Flash does, but for data-driven
    online catalogs/shopping carts, and/or any website which doesn't have the
    need to visually demonstrate concepts or products, Silverlight/Flash are
    overhead-producing overkill.

    When it comes to giving clients quick data and purchasing choices,
    platforms which deliver HTML to clients, like ASP.NET does,
    are much more efficient and quick-loading than either Silverlight or Flash.




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Blackhand" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I hardly think Silverlight will replace ASP.Net, because truly rich

    > applications
    >> can be developed using them in conjunction with each other.
    >>
    >> It also needs to be taken into account that most people don't like

    > installing
    >> plugins in their browser, so large scale uptake will be slow.
    >>
    >> Personally I would still prefer to do back office applications without
    >> Silverlight. Myself and the other seniors at our company still aren't
    >> particularly thrilled with Silverlight.
    >>
    >> Silverlight 2.0 will likely be a big thing, like LINQ to SQL, until people

    > start
    >> using it in enterprise applications and start taking all the extra

    > implications
    >> into account.




    > I was speaking to the future, I wasn't suggesting that Silverlight is ready
    > now. However with a stronger control framework a future Silverlight will be
    > very compelling.
    >
    > Simply put HTML is just not the right platform to deliver a UI (as opposed
    > to displaying content). The use of HTML in this way was forced on to users
    > by IT departments trying to regain control of applications delvered to users
    > and by woefully inadequate means of centrally managing what is installed on
    > PCs.
    >
    > The continued focus of those developing the HTML standard and the related
    > CSS standard is content delivery with only a secondary nod to UI. The fact
    > is though that a UI developer wants a much finer control over the
    > presentation whereas the HTML/CSS committees are going in the other
    > direction, trying to separate content from presentation.
    >
    > This means that UI developer often has to wrestle HTML into doing what is
    > needed. That's not to mention that various browsers don't always interpret
    > the same HTML/CSS in the same way. Yes ASP.NET does help reduce that
    > significantly by insulating the developer somewhat but it can never be
    > complete and it still doesn't fix the fact that the underlying technology
    > isn't properly suited to the task.
    >
    > Having a sandbox on the client which has few external dependacies running
    > code written in C# that does what you ask it to, is over time, going to be
    > prefered to struggling with HTML based UIs. This is of course an my own
    > conjectured opinion and depends a great deal on whether a usable control
    > framework appears in Silverlight.
    >
    > In the wider world of the public web where, as you say, some users are loath
    > to install additional components Silverlight may not have as much impact.
    > It already has established competitors which are fairly ubiquitous.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 15, 2008
    #7
  8. "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > re:
    > !> Simply put HTML is just not the right platform to deliver a UI (as

    opposed to displaying content).
    >
    > If you mean a *Rich User Interface* or *Rich Interactive Applications*,
    > I agree, but there's a lot of adequate HTML-based UI's on the web now.
    >


    We had adequate UIs 10+ years ago in fat client windows apps. As an
    industry we haven't served our users well with HTML based UIs. We could
    have done a lot better had we not lumbered ourselves with a technology that
    is only barely "adequate" and takes quite a lot of effort to produce what
    was an absolute breeze to knock up in something like VB3 years and years
    ago.

    > If there's a need for visual demonstrations, Silverlight/Flash can't be

    beat,
    > and Silverlight certainly does a lot more than Flash does, but for

    data-driven
    > online catalogs/shopping carts, and/or any website which doesn't have the
    > need to visually demonstrate concepts or products, Silverlight/Flash are
    > overhead-producing overkill.
    >


    Its unfortunate that Silverlight has seen the light of day (pun, sorry) in
    such an imcomplete state. Its put the spot light (oops did it agian) on the
    sexy stuff of clever media integration and other slick UI gimicks. The
    really important message has got lost which is not surprising when the
    current version doesn't even do textboxes well. What's important isn't all
    that Flash-a-like stuff; it is a .NET Framework in an independant sandbox.

    > When it comes to giving clients quick data and purchasing choices,
    > platforms which deliver HTML to clients, like ASP.NET does,
    > are much more efficient and quick-loading than either Silverlight or

    Flash.
    >


    In the future that I'm talking about the client end of an application will
    be _in_ Silverlight and the user will not be navigating to or from a
    multiple pages hosting Silverlight.

    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    Anthony Jones, Jun 15, 2008
    #8
  9. I'll agree to the extent that there's a lot of work to be done on Silverlight,
    and that its future, if the promise made can be delivered, may be bright.

    There's no way that Silverlight can compete in throughput efficiency with ASP.NET, though.

    Silverlight is a bandwidth-intensive platform, hardly suitable for business needs.
    As far as eye-candy goes, it's alright, though.




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> re:
    >> !> Simply put HTML is just not the right platform to deliver a UI (as

    > opposed to displaying content).
    >>
    >> If you mean a *Rich User Interface* or *Rich Interactive Applications*,
    >> I agree, but there's a lot of adequate HTML-based UI's on the web now.
    >>

    >
    > We had adequate UIs 10+ years ago in fat client windows apps. As an
    > industry we haven't served our users well with HTML based UIs. We could
    > have done a lot better had we not lumbered ourselves with a technology that
    > is only barely "adequate" and takes quite a lot of effort to produce what
    > was an absolute breeze to knock up in something like VB3 years and years
    > ago.
    >
    >> If there's a need for visual demonstrations, Silverlight/Flash can't be

    > beat,
    >> and Silverlight certainly does a lot more than Flash does, but for

    > data-driven
    >> online catalogs/shopping carts, and/or any website which doesn't have the
    >> need to visually demonstrate concepts or products, Silverlight/Flash are
    >> overhead-producing overkill.
    >>

    >
    > Its unfortunate that Silverlight has seen the light of day (pun, sorry) in
    > such an imcomplete state. Its put the spot light (oops did it agian) on the
    > sexy stuff of clever media integration and other slick UI gimicks. The
    > really important message has got lost which is not surprising when the
    > current version doesn't even do textboxes well. What's important isn't all
    > that Flash-a-like stuff; it is a .NET Framework in an independant sandbox.
    >
    >> When it comes to giving clients quick data and purchasing choices,
    >> platforms which deliver HTML to clients, like ASP.NET does,
    >> are much more efficient and quick-loading than either Silverlight or

    > Flash.
    >>

    >
    > In the future that I'm talking about the client end of an application will
    > be _in_ Silverlight and the user will not be navigating to or from a
    > multiple pages hosting Silverlight.
    >
    > --
    > Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    >
    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 15, 2008
    #9
  10. search engines just need to evolve. no biggie.

    --

    Regards,
    Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

    [Shameless Author plug]
    The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition
    Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99
    -------------------------------------------------------


    "Blackhand" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Another problem that's getting overlooked, is that search engine spiders
    > can't parse the content of flash/silverlight.
    >
    > For a lot of our clients that would be reason enough not to go for a full
    > on Silverlight solution (your site is only as good as its traffic). Yes
    > there are ways to improve search engine friendliness, bottom line is,
    > unfortunately, the spider still can't crawl the content and rank your page
    > anywhere near as well as if it was HTML.
    >
    > Mark Rae [MVP] wrote:
    >> "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>> Silverlight is a bandwidth-intensive platform, hardly suitable for
    >>> business needs.
    >>> As far as eye-candy goes, it's alright, though.

    >>
    >> Agreed 100%. Silverlight is great when the main purpose of the site it's
    >> used on is to show how clever the developers are at graphics stuff, but
    >> for business apps where functionality is more important than graphics,
    >> Silverlight is all but irrelevant...
    >>
    >>
    Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP], Jun 16, 2008
    #10
  11. "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'll agree to the extent that there's a lot of work to be done on

    Silverlight,
    > and that its future, if the promise made can be delivered, may be bright.
    >
    > There's no way that Silverlight can compete in throughput efficiency with

    ASP.NET, though.
    >


    I don't understand that statement. Currently I have an ASP.NET / AJAX
    developement tuned such that all that needs to pass back between client and
    server is the dynamically changing data. All the JS, CSS, XSL and
    containing HTML is pretty much served up from the clients local cache.

    I can't see any reason why the same can't apply in to a Silverlight app in
    the future. In fact it would be quite natural.

    > Silverlight is a bandwidth-intensive platform, hardly suitable for

    business needs.
    > As far as eye-candy goes, it's alright, though.


    Yes, currently its potential is clouded by all this 'eye-candy' that is
    currently being promoted not least of course by MS because it isn't ready to
    do anything else.


    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    Anthony Jones, Jun 16, 2008
    #11
  12. re:
    !> I can't see any reason why the same can't apply in to a Silverlight app in the future.

    Let me know when it's ready.

    <chuckle>




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Anthony Jones" <> wrote in message news:OQep94%...
    >
    > "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I'll agree to the extent that there's a lot of work to be done on

    > Silverlight,
    >> and that its future, if the promise made can be delivered, may be bright.
    >>
    >> There's no way that Silverlight can compete in throughput efficiency with

    > ASP.NET, though.
    >>

    >
    > I don't understand that statement. Currently I have an ASP.NET / AJAX
    > developement tuned such that all that needs to pass back between client and
    > server is the dynamically changing data. All the JS, CSS, XSL and
    > containing HTML is pretty much served up from the clients local cache.
    >
    > I can't see any reason why the same can't apply in to a Silverlight app in
    > the future. In fact it would be quite natural.
    >
    >> Silverlight is a bandwidth-intensive platform, hardly suitable for

    > business needs.
    >> As far as eye-candy goes, it's alright, though.

    >
    > Yes, currently its potential is clouded by all this 'eye-candy' that is
    > currently being promoted not least of course by MS because it isn't ready to
    > do anything else.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    >
    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 16, 2008
    #12
  13. re:
    !> search engines just need to evolve. no biggie.

    That's easy for you to say... ;-)




    Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
    asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <vapor dan using hot male spam filter> wrote in message
    news:...
    > search engines just need to evolve. no biggie.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    > Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
    >
    > [Shameless Author plug]
    > The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition
    > Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99
    > -------------------------------------------------------
    >
    >
    > "Blackhand" <> wrote in message news:eek:...
    >> Another problem that's getting overlooked, is that search engine spiders can't parse the content of
    >> flash/silverlight.
    >>
    >> For a lot of our clients that would be reason enough not to go for a full on Silverlight solution (your site is only
    >> as good as its traffic). Yes there are ways to improve search engine friendliness, bottom line is, unfortunately, the
    >> spider still can't crawl the content and rank your page anywhere near as well as if it was HTML.
    >>
    >> Mark Rae [MVP] wrote:
    >>> "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message news:...
    >>>
    >>>> Silverlight is a bandwidth-intensive platform, hardly suitable for business needs.
    >>>> As far as eye-candy goes, it's alright, though.
    >>>
    >>> Agreed 100%. Silverlight is great when the main purpose of the site it's used on is to show how clever the
    >>> developers are at graphics stuff, but for business apps where functionality is more important than graphics,
    >>> Silverlight is all but irrelevant...
    >>>
    >>>
    Juan T. Llibre, Jun 16, 2008
    #13
  14. "Juan T. Llibre" <> wrote in message
    news:%23KMB1o$...
    > re:
    > !> I can't see any reason why the same can't apply in to a Silverlight app

    in the future.
    >
    > Let me know when it's ready.
    >
    > <chuckle>
    >
    >


    ;) Yes it could be just another flash (oops) in the pan.


    --
    Anthony Jones - MVP ASP/ASP.NET
    Anthony Jones, Jun 17, 2008
    #14
  15. Andrew Morton, Jun 17, 2008
    #15
  16. Artificer

    Scott M. Guest

    I'm still amazed by sites that don't put a date next to their news/blog
    posts. It would be nice to be able to know when that article was written.


    "Andrew Morton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Blackhand wrote:
    >> Another problem that's getting overlooked, is that search engine
    >> spiders can't parse the content of flash/silverlight.

    >
    > Don't tell anyone, but they /can/ parse Flash content...
    > http://www.searchengineworkshops.com/articles/flash.html
    >
    > Andrew
    >
    Scott M., Jul 1, 2008
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jassim Rahma

    silverlight video website with ASP.NET

    Jassim Rahma, Sep 3, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    477
    Michael Nemtsev, MVP
    Sep 6, 2007
  2. Vinnie

    ASP. NET (silverlight, blend... )!

    Vinnie, Sep 29, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    638
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Sep 29, 2007
  3. Andy B
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    264
    Andy B
    Nov 26, 2007
  4. Amir Tohidi

    ASP.NET 3.x --- WPF --- Silverlight

    Amir Tohidi, Dec 4, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    393
    Amir Tohidi
    Dec 5, 2007
  5. Oriane
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    500
    PhilTheGap
    Jan 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page