Coding the old way!

[verb13]

A friend proposes to use the old (classic asp) way to write asp.net
pages, i.e. mixing html with asp.net code (using Response.Write). He
doesn't use either controls or events. The point is that this way one
has greater control over the html output (plus the learning curve is
shorter if one is coming from a classic asp background).
I would like your views on the following:
1)How popular is that method? Are there people that use it?
2)What are the disadvantages?
3)Is it really so bad that it is out of the question?

 

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

A friend proposes to use the old (classic asp) way to write asp.net
pages, i.e. mixing html with asp.net code (using Response.Write). He
doesn't use either controls or events. The point is that this way one
has greater control over the html output (plus the learning curve is
shorter if one is coming from a classic asp background).
I would like your views on the following:

1)How popular is that method? Are there people that use it?

Very unpopular.

2)What are the disadvantages?

You get none of the object events. There is no seperation of events, logic
and presentation, no use of caching, paging, etc.

3)Is it really so bad that it is out of the question?

Needs be needs must - response.write is for those times when you are stuck
and cant work out the correct way to do something or need to outpout a bit
of raw text. It will take a competent net developer a fraction of the time
to create the same pages with asp 3.0

Regards

John Timney (MVP)
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog

 

[Mark Rae]

The point is that this way one has greater control over the
html output

Utter, utter rubbish!

(plus the learning curve is shorter if one is coming from a classic
asp background).

So why not just stick with that...?

1)How popular is that method?

I have no idea...

Are there people that use it?

I'm sure there are some - there are still some people using Netscape 1.x...

2)What are the disadvantages?

You get none of the benefits for which ASP.NET was created...

3)Is it really so bad that it is out of the question?

Depends whether you're serious about what you're doing, or just playing
about...

 

[Kevin Spencer]

The most expensive aspect of software cost is the hours of development time.
A good developer spends quite a bit of time studying up on tools and
technologies that will enable him/her to develop more in less time. Overall,
ASP.Net development takes much less time than Classic ASP procedural-style
development, for a competent developer, once the technology is well-learned.
It sounds like your friend is too lazy to become a competent developer.

In addition, software, unlike books, does not remain the same after its'
creation. It evolves. This means that the software must be re-developed,
extended, and so on, over time. With Classic ASP procedural-style, that is
going to mean many more developer hours.

Finally, developers sometimes work alone, but often in teams, and many
developers have had the responsibility to work on another developer's code.
If it is Classic ASP procedural-style code, it does not conform to any
existing convention, and therefore costs more to work on.

So, the answers to your questions are:

1)How popular is that method? Are there people that use it?

Only among amateurs, beginners and shade-tree developers, and probably not
that popular even then.

2)What are the disadvantages?

At least those mentioned above.

3)Is it really so bad that it is out of the question?

IMHO, yes.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP

Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries:
http://www.miradyne.net