DotNet 2.0

Discussion in 'ASP General' started by Paxton, Dec 20, 2005.

  1. Paxton

    Paxton Guest

    Anyone played with DotNet 2.0 or the Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
    Edition yet? any thoughts?

    /P.
     
    Paxton, Dec 20, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paxton wrote:
    > Anyone played with DotNet 2.0 or the Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
    > Edition yet? any thoughts?
    >
    > /P.

    There was no way for you to know it, but this is a classic asp newsgroup.
    While you may be lucky enough to find a dotnet-savvy person here who can
    answer your question, you can eliminate the luck factor by posting your
    question to a newsgroup where the dotnet-savvy people hang out. I suggest
    microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.

    I've heard lots of good things about it, but all I can say about it is that
    it installed without a hitch on my machine. I have not had a chance to start
    using it yet.

    HTH,
    Bob Barrows
    --
    Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
    header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
    quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.
     
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Dec 20, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paxton

    Paxton Guest

    Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
    > Paxton wrote:
    > > Anyone played with DotNet 2.0 or the Visual Web Developer 2005 Express
    > > Edition yet? any thoughts?
    > >
    > > /P.

    > There was no way for you to know it, but this is a classic asp newsgroup.
    > While you may be lucky enough to find a dotnet-savvy person here who can
    > answer your question, you can eliminate the luck factor by posting your
    > question to a newsgroup where the dotnet-savvy people hang out. I suggest
    > microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.
    >
    > I've heard lots of good things about it, but all I can say about it is that
    > it installed without a hitch on my machine. I have not had a chance to start
    > using it yet.
    >
    > HTH,
    > Bob Barrows


    I didn't expect the standard .NET response! :)

    I'm a classic ASP-er too, and was just interested to find out whether
    other classic ASP-ers have tried out the latest .NET offering from
    Uncle Bill, and what their initial thoughts on it were.

    Having tried 1.1, and found that simply connecting to a database and
    generating a recordset required tons more code in .NET than classic
    ASP, I never really bothered to stick with it. I've only played with
    the new VWD toy for a couple of hours, but was amazed at how much
    simpler it is to do quite a lot of things now.

    /P.
     
    Paxton, Dec 20, 2005
    #3
  4. Paxton wrote:
    >
    > I didn't expect the standard .NET response! :)


    Bwahahahaha. NOBODY expects the ....

    Oh, wait. You didn't say "Spanish Inquisition" ...

    Never mind. :)



    --
    Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
    header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
    quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.
     
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Dec 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Paxton wrote:
    <snipped>
    > I'm a classic ASP-er too, and was just interested to find out whether
    > other classic ASP-ers have tried out the latest .NET offering from
    > Uncle Bill, and what their initial thoughts on it were.
    >
    > Having tried 1.1, and found that simply connecting to a database and
    > generating a recordset required tons more code in .NET than classic
    > ASP, I never really bothered to stick with it. I've only played with
    > the new VWD toy for a couple of hours, but was amazed at how much
    > simpler it is to do quite a lot of things now.
    > /P.


    Yes, it's now almost caught up with Sybase's PowerBuilder!

    One pain for those who used ASP.NET 1.1 is that some 1.1 objects are now
    effectively deprecated. The old 1.1 grid control has been supplanted by
    a superior new "gridview" which provides much functionality with no
    explicit coding. There's more on this thread:
    http://groups.google.com/group/micr...rid or gridview&rnum=7&hl=en#dd87abde73de5f0c

    Anyone who wrote a lot of code for ASP.NET 1.1 will eventually find
    themselves rewriting for ASP.NET 2.0 (and ASP.NET 3.0 etc.).

    The troublesome thing about object frameworks like VS and ASP.NET is
    that this will occur many times over in the history of the framework. I
    avoid development of complex OOP architectures on top of vendor object
    libraries (such as ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0) because the vendors inevitably
    revise/reorganize/rewrite the libraries, which forces you to rewrite
    your own code. Like Joel Spolsky says,

    > we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.


    from
    "How Microsoft Lost the API War"
    http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

    IMO Visual Studio (VS) and ASP.NET 2.0 are fine provided you don't want
    to know what's happening under the sheets. VS has drag-and-drop for the
    WWW and continues Microsoft's pursuit of making the Internet transparent
    (as Bill Gates said about TCP/IP "It's only transport!"). To do this VS
    generates lots of code and ASP.NET calls lots of functions in your
    behalf, so you may or may not like the results.

    But I'm just speaking from what I've seen and what my cohorts say. I
    don't use VS or ASP.NET myself; I now primarily use free-and open-source
    (FOSS) languages and toolkits.
     
    Michael D. Kersey, Dec 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Paxton

    Paxton Guest

    Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
    > Paxton wrote:
    > >
    > > I didn't expect the standard .NET response! :)

    >
    > Bwahahahaha. NOBODY expects the ....
    >
    > Oh, wait. You didn't say "Spanish Inquisition" ...
    >
    > Never mind. :)
    >


    That reminds me - I MUST add Monty Python DVDs to my Xmas list :)

    /P.
     
    Paxton, Dec 20, 2005
    #6
  7. On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:00:01 -0600, "Michael D. Kersey" <>
    wrote:
    in <>

    >Paxton wrote:
    ><snipped>
    >> I'm a classic ASP-er too, and was just interested to find out whether
    >> other classic ASP-ers have tried out the latest .NET offering from
    >> Uncle Bill, and what their initial thoughts on it were.
    >>
    >> Having tried 1.1, and found that simply connecting to a database and
    >> generating a recordset required tons more code in .NET than classic
    >> ASP, I never really bothered to stick with it. I've only played with
    >> the new VWD toy for a couple of hours, but was amazed at how much
    >> simpler it is to do quite a lot of things now.
    >> /P.

    >
    >Yes, it's now almost caught up with Sybase's PowerBuilder!
    >
    >One pain for those who used ASP.NET 1.1 is that some 1.1 objects are now
    >effectively deprecated. The old 1.1 grid control has been supplanted by
    >a superior new "gridview" which provides much functionality with no
    >explicit coding. There's more on this thread:
    >http://groups.google.com/group/micr...rid or gridview&rnum=7&hl=en#dd87abde73de5f0c
    >
    >Anyone who wrote a lot of code for ASP.NET 1.1 will eventually find
    >themselves rewriting for ASP.NET 2.0 (and ASP.NET 3.0 etc.).
    >
    >The troublesome thing about object frameworks like VS and ASP.NET is
    >that this will occur many times over in the history of the framework. I
    >avoid development of complex OOP architectures on top of vendor object
    >libraries (such as ASP.NET 1.1 and 2.0) because the vendors inevitably
    >revise/reorganize/rewrite the libraries, which forces you to rewrite
    >your own code. Like Joel Spolsky says,
    >
    >> we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.

    >
    >from
    >"How Microsoft Lost the API War"
    >http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html
    >
    >IMO Visual Studio (VS) and ASP.NET 2.0 are fine provided you don't want
    >to know what's happening under the sheets. VS has drag-and-drop for the
    >WWW and continues Microsoft's pursuit of making the Internet transparent
    >(as Bill Gates said about TCP/IP "It's only transport!"). To do this VS
    >generates lots of code and ASP.NET calls lots of functions in your
    >behalf, so you may or may not like the results.
    >
    >But I'm just speaking from what I've seen and what my cohorts say. I
    >don't use VS or ASP.NET myself; I now primarily use free-and open-source
    >(FOSS) languages and toolkits.


    microsoft would really prefer to make the Internet invisible and inaccessible
    (as opposed to transparent) because the Internet has allowed that backward OSS
    group of folks to gain far too much long term credibility.

    ---
    Stefan Berglund
     
    Stefan Berglund, Dec 20, 2005
    #7
    1. Advertisements

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. Jenny

    dotnet newbie question

    Jenny, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,251
    K_Lee
    Nov 6, 2003
  2. Charles A. Lackman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,573
    smith
    Dec 8, 2004
  3. SpamProof
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    751
    SpamProof
    Oct 21, 2003
  4. Chuck
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    578
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=
    Feb 8, 2007
  5. Alfred Sehmueller
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    358
    Alfred Sehmueller
    Feb 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page