Is ASP.NET outdated?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Joe (MCAD), Dec 25, 2006.

  1. Joe (MCAD)

    Joe (MCAD) Guest

    Hi all, I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion with regards to
    how/if outdated ASP.NET is.

    ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a
    great stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time
    was jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on,
    specifically ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the
    positive effect open source now has on a framework.

    Open source use to conjure memories of shotty shareware/freeware
    programs on my first computer; a c64. Its completely different now,
    instead of a few people at deciding what should be in the next version,
    the community as a whole can effectively vote by choosing which modules
    to use. I feel that this allows for some rapid evolution. If I dont like
    what the asp.net framework is doing, or even try to understand why its
    doing what its doing, I'm basically SOL; i just have to work around the
    problem. Hell, I went through a lot of pain to figure out how to set up
    my machine to debug through the framework in c#. Regardless, I cant just
    change the framework as I see fit; and then post it to the community to
    be told I'm a genius or stupid.

    Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
    far more expensive than other frameworks. It seems like there is a lot
    of complexity to get ajax to work in the asp.net framework. This
    complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not to mention there seems
    to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which might be my fault due
    to improper use).

    Thoughts?
    Joe (MCAD), Dec 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Joe (MCAD)

    Guest Guest

    I don't think so for a few reasons.

    ASP.NET has some sophisticated underpinnings: it asks that you become a
    marginally competant programmer, understand objects/OO, and appreciate
    abstraction. Forget newbie ease-of-use as a selling point: that's not
    ASP.NET's forte. The ease of use comes later in careers, when you appreciate
    ASP.NET's modularity, encapsulation, and ability to parameterize controls in
    sophisticated ways. I'm doing a major collection of redesigns right now and
    the ability to break down the whole problem into a bunch of more-or-less
    self.contained user controls is just so cool.

    Ruby on Rails is one ORM-ish framework that works well for a lot of people.
    Once you understand OO reasonably well, and sort-of master a tool like
    VS.NET, bolting on your own ORM framework and toolset is easy enough. I used
    an ORM framework called dOOdads for awhile, and now a successor called
    EntitySpaces that builts hierarchical "mappings" against your data
    structures. Both are awesome. Neither were designed as a part of ASP.NET,
    but the point is that the extensibility and flexibilty of the framework and
    the sophistication of tools like VS.NET made it possible for someone to add
    on ORM stuff in a useful way.

    Another data point: look at tools like Telerik, Inc's control set for
    ASP.NET. I haven't seen anything quite like them on any other web
    application framework: they're brilliant. The ongoing development of
    toolsets like Telerik's keeps the platform current.

    Another data point: they put out the 2.0 release last year, which makes the
    whole five-year-old discussion sort of moot. 2.0 added a lot of new stuff,
    especially in terms of roles and personalization.

    ASP.NET doesn't cost anything, I don't know where you got the idea it did.
    Some more play may be in order.

    -KF
    Guest, Dec 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Joe (MCAD)

    Mark Rae Guest

    "Joe (MCAD)" <> wrote in message
    news:bZFjh.52647$...

    > Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX.


    That's right.

    > Correct me if I'm wrong here but its far more expensive than other
    > frameworks.


    Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
    free. Similarly, if you don't need the "full" versions, Microsoft provides
    "Express" versions of its development tools, also for free:
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vwd/
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/default.aspx

    Obviously you will need a copy of Windows, preferably XP Pro, on which to
    install them, and a copy of Windows Server on which to deploy any
    application you create with them...

    > It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
    > asp.net framework.


    Not at all - a couple of additional lines of code are usually all that's
    required. Have a look at something like this: http://anthemdotnet.com/
    Mark Rae, Dec 25, 2006
    #3
  4. "ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000"

    --No, ASP.NET 2.0 is based on current framework and version 3.0 is already
    available, circa 2006.


    "The most important I feel is the positive effect open source now has on a
    framework"

    -- A quick look at sourceforge.net, Codeplex or google code reveals that
    there is huge open-source support for the .NET Framework. There is also
    strong community support from developers and users about what goes into the
    framework. Just because the "product" isn't open source doesn't mean that
    Microsoft does not listen to users.

    Re AJAX, Microsoft invented it in 1998 - its properly referred to as "Remote
    Scripting". Its really platform independent and relies on XMLHTTP Request
    object that is now built into all modern browsers.

    As Mark pointed out, there are numerous simplified "AJAX" Frameworks for
    ..NET, nobody is holding a gun to your head about which to use.

    Currently, about 46% of the Fortune 1000 companies use .NET for enterprise
    level applications. You could dispute the statistics as being biased, but the
    fact remains this is a very successful platform with broad support and
    innovation.

    Peter




    --
    Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
    UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
    Short urls & more: http://ittyurl.net
    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZXIgQnJvbWJlcmcgW0MjIE1WUF0=?=, Dec 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Joe (MCAD)

    Joe (MCAD) Guest

    Mark Rae wrote:
    > "Joe (MCAD)" <> wrote in message
    > news:bZFjh.52647$...
    >
    >> Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX.

    >
    > That's right.
    >
    >> Correct me if I'm wrong here but its far more expensive than other
    >> frameworks.

    >
    > Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
    > free. Similarly, if you don't need the "full" versions, Microsoft provides
    > "Express" versions of its development tools, also for free:
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/vwd/
    > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/sql/default.aspx


    In terms of performance. Using the updatepanel... If we use the
    viewstate (sometimes we dont have a choice) its sent on every ajax
    request; big problem when your viewstate is 10k+ but the minimum
    necessary is <1-2k. Makes sense having to always send the viewstate
    since other server controls might have to fire off events. Thats the
    next issue, the server has to process many other controls that
    potentially have no interaction with the action that caused the request;
    wasting processing time doing unnecessary rendering, and prerendering,
    and databinding...


    >> It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
    >> asp.net framework.

    >
    > Not at all - a couple of additional lines of code are usually all that's
    > required. Have a look at something like this: http://anthemdotnet.com/
    >
    >

    Right, using the updatepanel is pretty easy, just a few lines of code.
    But those few lines of code are doing something far more complex behind
    the scene, and that comes at a cost.
    Joe (MCAD), Dec 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Joe (MCAD)

    darrel Guest

    > ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a great
    > stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time was
    > jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on, specifically
    > ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the positive effect
    > open source now has on a framework.


    From a technical standpoint, I'm really not skilled enough to say.

    But from a 'vibe' standpoint, yes, It seems that asp.net is outdated. But,
    for that matter, I guess it seems that many of the systems are outdated by
    that defnition.

    If it's not open source, and not PHP or ROR, then it just doesn't have that
    web 2.0 'vibe'.

    > Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
    > far more expensive than other frameworks.


    ATLAS is free. ASP.net is free.

    IIS isn't, of course.

    > It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
    > asp.net framework. This complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not
    > to mention there seems to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which
    > might be my fault due to improper use).


    I think the big thing (and this is my impression) is that MS's framework is
    all about integration.

    IIS integrated with MSSQAL integrated with ASP.net integrated with VS.net
    integrated with reporting services integrated with Sharepoint, etc.

    They've built this great, robust system, and targeted it at enteprise
    application developers.

    And for that, I have to say, it works great.

    But it's not as ideal for the next web2.0-I-hope-we-get-bought-by-google web
    site for a number of reasons:

    - it's heavy. ATLAS is a beast. Not a big deal on an intranet. Perhaps a
    big deal on the web at large
    - it's not free. Startups like free (as in open source)
    - the community is a bit lopsided (mostly fellow entrprise software
    devlopors)

    So, yea, I guess I feel the same way. I feel a little bit out of the loop
    sticking with ASP.net

    -Darrel
    darrel, Dec 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Joe (MCAD)

    darrel Guest

    > Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
    > free.


    That's a bit of a marketing myth.

    You can't just 'run' the .net framwork.

    Yea, it's free, but you need IIS. IIS is free, provided you've purchased
    Windows.

    The dev tools are nice. And are now increasingly free. But you still need a
    licensed copy of Windows to run them.

    So, compared to something like ROR or PHP, where you truly don't have to
    spend money on any softwarew on either end (dev or serving) ASP.net isn't
    truly the same level of 'free'.

    -Darrel
    darrel, Dec 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Joe (MCAD)

    darrel Guest

    > Currently, about 46% of the Fortune 1000 companies use .NET for enterprise
    > level applications. You could dispute the statistics as being biased, but
    > the
    > fact remains this is a very successful platform with broad support and
    > innovation.


    I'm not arguing that there aren't innovative parts to ASP.net

    However, I frown upon the 'market share = quality' line of reasoning so
    often tossed about.

    -Darrel
    darrel, Dec 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Joe (MCAD)

    Mark Rae Guest

    "darrel" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> Expensive in terms of what? Certainly not money, as the .NET Framework is
    >> free.

    >
    > That's a bit of a marketing myth.
    >
    > You can't just 'run' the .net framwork.
    >
    > Yea, it's free, but you need IIS. IIS is free, provided you've purchased
    > Windows.


    http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-28,GGLG:en&q=ASP.NET Mono

    > The dev tools are nice. And are now increasingly free. But you still need
    > a licensed copy of Windows to run them.


    That's true, though you may as well say that no software is *truly* free
    because you still need a PC to run it on...
    Mark Rae, Dec 26, 2006
    #9
  10. On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 01:39:19 GMT, Joe (MCAD) wrote:

    > Hi all, I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion with regards to
    > how/if outdated ASP.NET is.


    It's not.

    > ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a
    > great stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time
    > was jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on,
    > specifically ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the
    > positive effect open source now has on a framework.


    Ruby on Rails solves one specific problem pretty well, and that's the
    situation where you really don't care about the data model. You just want
    something to serialize your objects to and are willing to let the framework
    do the work for you.

    It's not quite so good (though certainly usable) for what 95% of the rest
    of the web developers need (note web developers, not web designers) which
    is the ability to map objects to a pre-defined and pre-architected data
    model, often generations old. In effect, you lose all the 'neatness' of
    RoR and are stuck with a framework that wasn't designed to meet your needs.

    RoR has served it's purpose, though, and a number of third party Rails-like
    projects have sprung up for various languages and platforms, including
    ASP.NET. You can look at the Castle Project for a good example. It's also
    shook Microsoft enough that they've developed their own ORM system in
    Visual Studio Orcas (the next version), with a lot of ruby-like extensions
    to C#. As more modern languages adopt RoR features, ruby will likely fall
    into disuse, since it's a very special purpose language.

    As for Open Source, there's plenty of third party open source .net projects
    out there. The afore mentioned Castle project is one of them. And
    understanding the framework is relatively easy when using any of the freely
    available .net decompilers out there, like reflector.

    > Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
    > far more expensive than other frameworks. It seems like there is a lot
    > of complexity to get ajax to work in the asp.net framework. This
    > complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not to mention there seems
    > to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which might be my fault due
    > to improper use).


    ASP.NET AJAX isn't the only AJAX solution out there. It's really designed
    more for intranets than for lean web usage. One thing to remember is that
    ASP.NET can be as lean or as complex as you want to make it.
    Erik Funkenbusch, Dec 27, 2006
    #10
  11. To say that ASP.Net is outdated is to say that an entire segment of the .Net
    platform, and perhaps of the Internet is outdated. ASP.Net is much more than
    a programming technology for creating dynamic web pages. It is a server-side
    HTTP technology that supports a whole plethora of sub-technologies,
    including Ajax and Web Services. They all have one thing in common: They
    handle HTTP requests, and return HTTP responses to a client software.

    As for Open Source, no doubt, it has its' place in the world. But it is
    nothing new, and it will never replace Microsoft technogies, or any other
    major non-Open Source vendor technologies. There is something to be said for
    using products and technologies that easily interconnect, and that is what
    Microsoft has been about for as long as I've known them.

    --
    HTH,

    Kevin Spencer
    Microsoft MVP
    Bit Player
    http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

    A pea rants as candy be sieving.

    "darrel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a great
    >> stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time was
    >> jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on, specifically
    >> ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the positive effect
    >> open source now has on a framework.

    >
    > From a technical standpoint, I'm really not skilled enough to say.
    >
    > But from a 'vibe' standpoint, yes, It seems that asp.net is outdated. But,
    > for that matter, I guess it seems that many of the systems are outdated by
    > that defnition.
    >
    > If it's not open source, and not PHP or ROR, then it just doesn't have
    > that web 2.0 'vibe'.
    >
    >> Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
    >> far more expensive than other frameworks.

    >
    > ATLAS is free. ASP.net is free.
    >
    > IIS isn't, of course.
    >
    >> It seems like there is a lot of complexity to get ajax to work in the
    >> asp.net framework. This complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not
    >> to mention there seems to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which
    >> might be my fault due to improper use).

    >
    > I think the big thing (and this is my impression) is that MS's framework
    > is all about integration.
    >
    > IIS integrated with MSSQAL integrated with ASP.net integrated with VS.net
    > integrated with reporting services integrated with Sharepoint, etc.
    >
    > They've built this great, robust system, and targeted it at enteprise
    > application developers.
    >
    > And for that, I have to say, it works great.
    >
    > But it's not as ideal for the next web2.0-I-hope-we-get-bought-by-google
    > web site for a number of reasons:
    >
    > - it's heavy. ATLAS is a beast. Not a big deal on an intranet. Perhaps a
    > big deal on the web at large
    > - it's not free. Startups like free (as in open source)
    > - the community is a bit lopsided (mostly fellow entrprise software
    > devlopors)
    >
    > So, yea, I guess I feel the same way. I feel a little bit out of the loop
    > sticking with ASP.net
    >
    > -Darrel
    >
    Kevin Spencer, Dec 27, 2006
    #11
  12. Joe (MCAD)

    darrel Guest

    >> Yea, it's free, but you need IIS. IIS is free, provided you've purchased
    >> Windows.

    >
    > http://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-28,GGLG:en&q=ASP.NET Mono


    Mono is a nice idea, but again, not the same thing.

    >> The dev tools are nice. And are now increasingly free. But you still need
    >> a licensed copy of Windows to run them.

    >
    > That's true, though you may as well say that no software is *truly* free
    > because you still need a PC to run it on...


    Yep. My only point is that you can not equate ASP.net with Open Source
    options without pointing out the cost differences which are real for some.

    -Darrel
    darrel, Dec 27, 2006
    #12
  13. Joe (MCAD)

    darrel Guest

    > As for Open Source, no doubt, it has its' place in the world. But it is
    > nothing new, and it will never replace Microsoft technogies


    ASP.net is HUGE in internal corporate intranets. When it comes to the hot,
    new web 2.0 stuff, though, it's WAY behind in terms of market
    share/penetration.

    It's not an outdated technology, but rather has an outdated public
    relations. ;o)

    > major non-Open Source vendor technologies. There is something to be said
    > for using products and technologies that easily interconnect, and that is
    > what Microsoft has been about for as long as I've known them.


    Yep. I completely agree. That's why they're huge in the corporate sector.

    I think there are parts at MS that realize this. The ATLAS teams seems quite
    aware of this, for starters, and is working on shaking that reputation a
    bit.

    -Darrel
    darrel, Dec 27, 2006
    #13
  14. Joe (MCAD)

    Joe (MCAD) Guest

    Kevin Spencer wrote:
    > To say that ASP.Net is outdated is to say that an entire segment of the .Net
    > platform, and perhaps of the Internet is outdated. ASP.Net is much more than
    > a programming technology for creating dynamic web pages. It is a server-side
    > HTTP technology that supports a whole plethora of sub-technologies,
    > including Ajax and Web Services. They all have one thing in common: They
    > handle HTTP requests, and return HTTP responses to a client software.
    >

    Point taken. Therefore, my question was specific to the generation of
    html/javascript which albeit incorrectly is often refered to as asp.net.
    Joe (MCAD), Dec 27, 2006
    #14
  15. Joe (MCAD)

    Joe (MCAD) Guest

    darrel wrote:
    >> As for Open Source, no doubt, it has its' place in the world. But it is
    >> nothing new, and it will never replace Microsoft technogies

    >
    > ASP.net is HUGE in internal corporate intranets. When it comes to the hot,
    > new web 2.0 stuff, though, it's WAY behind in terms of market
    > share/penetration.
    >
    > It's not an outdated technology, but rather has an outdated public
    > relations. ;o)

    I disagree that it will never/cant happen, it almost already happened
    when MS wasn't paying attention to the Internet sector in the '90's.
    Yes, asp.net is perfect for intranets, now ROR seems to be a pretty good
    fit too. Intranets care more for a rich experience at low cost (asp.net)
    than a low bandwidth cutting edge at high cost (custom/other). What I
    see occurring is that the custom/other category is beginning to become
    cheaper and easier to use, the interconnectivity advantage as others are
    mentioning that has made MS sooooo much easier to use (and it is!) is
    beginning to fade.
    Joe (MCAD), Dec 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Joe (MCAD)

    Dhanraj K.S Guest

    MS will come there too, because Web 2.0 is nothing but offering more
    services through web basically making the distributed platform work through
    internet and ASP.NET has all the items that we can create a web 2.0
    application and Live Environement are the one you can take it as example. No
    one has yet built a greate Web 2.0 Application apart from the Blogs and
    Message Boards which are just a piece of techinical stuffs and nothing to do
    with the platform.

    I strongly beleive MS will be the one reliable source that developers can
    rely on in future. Look for WinFx i.e .NET 3.0 we will have plenty of
    stuffs.

    Thanks
    Dhanraj




    "darrel" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> As for Open Source, no doubt, it has its' place in the world. But it is
    >> nothing new, and it will never replace Microsoft technogies

    >
    > ASP.net is HUGE in internal corporate intranets. When it comes to the hot,
    > new web 2.0 stuff, though, it's WAY behind in terms of market
    > share/penetration.
    >
    > It's not an outdated technology, but rather has an outdated public
    > relations. ;o)
    >
    >> major non-Open Source vendor technologies. There is something to be said
    >> for using products and technologies that easily interconnect, and that is
    >> what Microsoft has been about for as long as I've known them.

    >
    > Yep. I completely agree. That's why they're huge in the corporate sector.
    >
    > I think there are parts at MS that realize this. The ATLAS teams seems
    > quite aware of this, for starters, and is working on shaking that
    > reputation a bit.
    >
    > -Darrel
    >
    Dhanraj K.S, Dec 29, 2006
    #16
  17. Joe (MCAD)

    Guest

    ASP.NET is doomed. Its a sad work around that trys to simplify web
    development - but by hiding the http workings it actually makes
    development more complicated. Besides - do you really want to learn a
    technology that changes as fast as you can learn it. How many times do
    you want to "relearn" to do the same fucking things over and over
    again? Stick with the open source stuff, its the only viable option.

    George



    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 01:39:19 GMT, Joe (MCAD) wrote:
    >
    > > Hi all, I just wanted to hear other peoples opinion with regards to
    > > how/if outdated ASP.NET is.

    >
    > It's not.
    >
    > > ASP.NET (and ASP.net 2.0) is based on framework from 2000. It was a
    > > great stride forward at that time, the other popular option at that time
    > > was jsp/ejb. Since that time a major paradigm shift caught on,
    > > specifically ajax and Ruby on rails. The most important I feel is the
    > > positive effect open source now has on a framework.

    >
    > Ruby on Rails solves one specific problem pretty well, and that's the
    > situation where you really don't care about the data model. You just want
    > something to serialize your objects to and are willing to let the framework
    > do the work for you.
    >
    > It's not quite so good (though certainly usable) for what 95% of the rest
    > of the web developers need (note web developers, not web designers) which
    > is the ability to map objects to a pre-defined and pre-architected data
    > model, often generations old. In effect, you lose all the 'neatness' of
    > RoR and are stuck with a framework that wasn't designed to meet your needs.
    >
    > RoR has served it's purpose, though, and a number of third party Rails-like
    > projects have sprung up for various languages and platforms, including
    > ASP.NET. You can look at the Castle Project for a good example. It's also
    > shook Microsoft enough that they've developed their own ORM system in
    > Visual Studio Orcas (the next version), with a lot of ruby-like extensions
    > to C#. As more modern languages adopt RoR features, ruby will likely fall
    > into disuse, since it's a very special purpose language.
    >
    > As for Open Source, there's plenty of third party open source .net projects
    > out there. The afore mentioned Castle project is one of them. And
    > understanding the framework is relatively easy when using any of the freely
    > available .net decompilers out there, like reflector.
    >
    > > Sure ASP.NET AJAX now allows AJAX. Correct me if I'm wrong here but its
    > > far more expensive than other frameworks. It seems like there is a lot
    > > of complexity to get ajax to work in the asp.net framework. This
    > > complexity doesn't exist in other frameworks. Not to mention there seems
    > > to be some quirky issues with asp.net ajax (which might be my fault due
    > > to improper use).

    >
    > ASP.NET AJAX isn't the only AJAX solution out there. It's really designed
    > more for intranets than for lean web usage. One thing to remember is that
    > ASP.NET can be as lean or as complex as you want to make it.
    , Jan 4, 2007
    #17
  18. On 3 Jan 2007 23:56:19 -0800, wrote:

    > ASP.NET is doomed. Its a sad work around that trys to simplify web
    > development - but by hiding the http workings it actually makes
    > development more complicated. Besides - do you really want to learn a
    > technology that changes as fast as you can learn it. How many times do
    > you want to "relearn" to do the same fucking things over and over
    > again? Stick with the open source stuff, its the only viable option.


    Yes, because open source never re-invents the weel either, right? JSP,
    Ruby on Rails, PHP, blah blah blah... Just when you learn one, another
    technology becomes popular.

    You're in the wrong industry if you're afraid of change.
    Erik Funkenbusch, Jan 8, 2007
    #18
  19. Joe (MCAD)

    Guest

    Not afraid - bored of needless.

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On 3 Jan 2007 23:56:19 -0800, wrote:
    >
    > > ASP.NET is doomed. Its a sad work around that trys to simplify web
    > > development - but by hiding the http workings it actually makes
    > > development more complicated. Besides - do you really want to learn a
    > > technology that changes as fast as you can learn it. How many times do
    > > you want to "relearn" to do the same fucking things over and over
    > > again? Stick with the open source stuff, its the only viable option.

    >
    > Yes, because open source never re-invents the weel either, right? JSP,
    > Ruby on Rails, PHP, blah blah blah... Just when you learn one, another
    > technology becomes popular.
    >
    > You're in the wrong industry if you're afraid of change.
    , Jan 14, 2007
    #19
    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. Harlan Osier

    HTML is outdated now !

    Harlan Osier, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    793
    Webcastmaker
    Jul 14, 2004
  2. Raf256

    why IE 7 will be outdated

    Raf256, Dec 23, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    940
  3. Jim Bancroft

    Use XSL to remove "outdated" nodes?

    Jim Bancroft, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: XML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,052
    Jim Bancroft
    Jul 2, 2003
  4. Markus Dreyer

    Accelerated C++ book outdated?

    Markus Dreyer, Jan 21, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    2,169
    Attila Feher
    Jan 28, 2004
  5. Mark Rae
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    36,997
    Mark Rae
    Jul 11, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page