Speed of Development

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by Simon Harvey, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. Simon Harvey

    Simon Harvey Guest

    Hi All,

    I have a colleague that I wprk with that develops using ASP. I develop using
    ASP.net.

    He seems to make sites much faster than me and I am wondering if its because
    of the two different technologies. I use codebehinds as standard

    Does anyone else find that developing with ASP.net takes more work than asp.

    I'm trying to avoid the conclusion that I'm just shit. Please help!

    Simon
     
    Simon Harvey, Apr 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Simon Harvey

    Curt_C [MVP] Guest

    "It depends"
    ASP has the ease of being able to be tossed together fairly quickly, but
    often it's very wrongly done (connections open, objects not destroyed, etc).
    It also has the abiltity to not have to be compiled, this is good and bad.
    ASP.NET, once you are familiar with the tools, is really just as quick. Down
    the line as you start to reuse classes (etc) you will find you gain speed
    too and pass him by.

    --
    Curt Christianson
    Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    www.Darkfalz.com


    "Simon Harvey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I have a colleague that I wprk with that develops using ASP. I develop

    using
    > ASP.net.
    >
    > He seems to make sites much faster than me and I am wondering if its

    because
    > of the two different technologies. I use codebehinds as standard
    >
    > Does anyone else find that developing with ASP.net takes more work than

    asp.
    >
    > I'm trying to avoid the conclusion that I'm just shit. Please help!
    >
    > Simon
    >
    >
     
    Curt_C [MVP], Apr 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In ASP.
    Connection does not need to be closed,
    Object does not need to be destroyed.

    The ASP.NET gives you so many abilities that you want to utilize them all.
    So it takes project to take more time. Since it has more features.

    Also i bet that his ASP forms do not have any validations.

    George.

    "Curt_C [MVP]" <software_AT_darkfalz.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "It depends"
    > ASP has the ease of being able to be tossed together fairly quickly, but
    > often it's very wrongly done (connections open, objects not destroyed,

    etc).
    > It also has the abiltity to not have to be compiled, this is good and bad.
    > ASP.NET, once you are familiar with the tools, is really just as quick.

    Down
    > the line as you start to reuse classes (etc) you will find you gain speed
    > too and pass him by.
    >
    > --
    > Curt Christianson
    > Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    > www.Darkfalz.com
    >
    >
    > "Simon Harvey" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > > I have a colleague that I wprk with that develops using ASP. I develop

    > using
    > > ASP.net.
    > >
    > > He seems to make sites much faster than me and I am wondering if its

    > because
    > > of the two different technologies. I use codebehinds as standard
    > >
    > > Does anyone else find that developing with ASP.net takes more work than

    > asp.
    > >
    > > I'm trying to avoid the conclusion that I'm just shit. Please help!
    > >
    > > Simon
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    George Ter-Saakov, Apr 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Simon Harvey

    Curt_C [MVP] Guest

    > In ASP.
    > Connection does not need to be closed,
    > Object does not need to be destroyed.
    >

    not true really.... they will eventually go away, but in the meantime they
    can, and will, eat major resources. It's always better to explicitly
    close/kill them.

    > Also i bet that his ASP forms do not have any validations.
    >

    some of the ASP.NET ones are clientside though, and could be replicated in
    ASP.


    --
    Curt Christianson
    Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    www.Darkfalz.com
     
    Curt_C [MVP], Apr 20, 2004
    #4
  5. A programmer's level of experience is of much greater magnitude than which
    development tool is used in terms of speed of development. (I'm talking
    about same generation tools, e.g. not programming in assembler v. visual
    basic)
    Experience, along with how motivated your staff is, is even more so the case
    within all that comprises a development project.

    That said, I consider myself (equally) experienced with classic ASP and
    ASP.NET. Comparing the two tools, in my experience using ASP.NET results in
    much more rapid development due to intellisense, compiling, and true
    debugging.
    It's also a much more pleasurable experience.

    --
    Peter O'Reilly
     
    Peter O'Reilly, Apr 20, 2004
    #5
  6. dito

    --
    Regards,
    Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]
    Got tidbits? Get it here...
    http://tinyurl.com/27cok
    "Peter O'Reilly" <!N!O!.S!P!AM!> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >A programmer's level of experience is of much greater magnitude than which
    > development tool is used in terms of speed of development. (I'm talking
    > about same generation tools, e.g. not programming in assembler v. visual
    > basic)
    > Experience, along with how motivated your staff is, is even more so the
    > case
    > within all that comprises a development project.
    >
    > That said, I consider myself (equally) experienced with classic ASP and
    > ASP.NET. Comparing the two tools, in my experience using ASP.NET results
    > in
    > much more rapid development due to intellisense, compiling, and true
    > debugging.
    > It's also a much more pleasurable experience.
    >
    > --
    > Peter O'Reilly
    >
    >
     
    Alvin Bruney [MVP], Apr 20, 2004
    #6
  7. I was talking about ASP (not ASP.NET)
    In ASP objects are released when they go out of scope.

    And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.

    There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the cyclic
    reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be closed
    even if it goes out of scope.

    George.


    "Curt_C [MVP]" <software_AT_darkfalz.com> wrote in message
    news:ukRS$...
    > > In ASP.
    > > Connection does not need to be closed,
    > > Object does not need to be destroyed.
    > >

    > not true really.... they will eventually go away, but in the meantime they
    > can, and will, eat major resources. It's always better to explicitly
    > close/kill them.
    >
    > > Also i bet that his ASP forms do not have any validations.
    > >

    > some of the ASP.NET ones are clientside though, and could be replicated in
    > ASP.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Curt Christianson
    > Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    > www.Darkfalz.com
    >
    >
     
    George Ter-Saakov, Apr 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Just say yes to closing objects

    > There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the cyclic
    > reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be

    closed
    > even if it goes out of scope.


    It was never a bug. In theory what you write should be the case (and is ok
    for a very light load), but practice tells me otherwise. Some RDBMS like
    Oracle 8,9i or MS Access (Jet) are much less forgiving than SQL Server with
    respect to not closing connections and recordsets. I have found this to be
    the case with IIS 4, 5, 5.1. Load testing a classic ASP application will
    make this immediately apparent.

    Microsoft/MSDN docs have consistently parroted all along that ADO recordsets
    and connection objects should be explicitly closed. The same is true, even
    more so for the .Net framework's datareader and connection objects. For
    instance, it is not possible to (re)use another datareader on the connection
    without closing the first. The result is an exception raised/run time
    error.

    --
    Peter O'Reilly
     
    Peter O'Reilly, Apr 22, 2004
    #8
  9. > And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.

    Hang on a second, George. Connections DO need to be closed, or disposed.
    Setting objects to Nothing does Nothing. Closing Connections frees them up
    for re-use.

    --
    HTH,
    Kevin Spencer
    ..Net Developer
    Microsoft MVP
    Big things are made up
    of lots of little things.

    "George Ter-Saakov" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I was talking about ASP (not ASP.NET)
    > In ASP objects are released when they go out of scope.
    >
    > And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.
    >
    > There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the cyclic
    > reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be

    closed
    > even if it goes out of scope.
    >
    > George.
    >
    >
    > "Curt_C [MVP]" <software_AT_darkfalz.com> wrote in message
    > news:ukRS$...
    > > > In ASP.
    > > > Connection does not need to be closed,
    > > > Object does not need to be destroyed.
    > > >

    > > not true really.... they will eventually go away, but in the meantime

    they
    > > can, and will, eat major resources. It's always better to explicitly
    > > close/kill them.
    > >
    > > > Also i bet that his ASP forms do not have any validations.
    > > >

    > > some of the ASP.NET ones are clientside though, and could be replicated

    in
    > > ASP.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Curt Christianson
    > > Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    > > www.Darkfalz.com
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Kevin Spencer, Apr 22, 2004
    #9
  10. I am talking about ASP. Not ASP.NET.
    In ASP.NET connection must be closed.
    In ASP it's not necessary.

    George.


    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > > And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.

    >
    > Hang on a second, George. Connections DO need to be closed, or disposed.
    > Setting objects to Nothing does Nothing. Closing Connections frees them up
    > for re-use.
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    > Kevin Spencer
    > .Net Developer
    > Microsoft MVP
    > Big things are made up
    > of lots of little things.
    >
    > "George Ter-Saakov" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I was talking about ASP (not ASP.NET)
    > > In ASP objects are released when they go out of scope.
    > >
    > > And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.
    > >
    > > There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the cyclic
    > > reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be

    > closed
    > > even if it goes out of scope.
    > >
    > > George.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Curt_C [MVP]" <software_AT_darkfalz.com> wrote in message
    > > news:ukRS$...
    > > > > In ASP.
    > > > > Connection does not need to be closed,
    > > > > Object does not need to be destroyed.
    > > > >
    > > > not true really.... they will eventually go away, but in the meantime

    > they
    > > > can, and will, eat major resources. It's always better to explicitly
    > > > close/kill them.
    > > >
    > > > > Also i bet that his ASP forms do not have any validations.
    > > > >
    > > > some of the ASP.NET ones are clientside though, and could be

    replicated
    > in
    > > > ASP.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Curt Christianson
    > > > Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    > > > www.Darkfalz.com
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    George Ter-Saakov, Apr 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: Just say yes to closing objects

    Yes. Do the test. I tested with MS SQL.
    Create an ASP page (not asp.net)

    <%
    Dim con
    Set con = CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
    con.Open "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Password=test;Persist Security Info=True;User
    ID=test;Initial Catalog=test;Data Source=test"
    %>

    Hit it couple times then go to Enterprise Managment Managment/Current
    Activity/Process Info and you will see only one connection.
    So it's not necessary to close connection in an APS page. ADO closes it for
    you as soon as object goes out of scope.
    MSDN is wirtten by people and usually not by developers who actually created
    ADO.

    BTW: It's practically impossible to write a clean ASP page which will close
    connections in any case (exception, script timeout, ...)


    George.


    "Peter O'Reilly" <!N!O!.S!P!AM!> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the cyclic
    > > reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be

    > closed
    > > even if it goes out of scope.

    >
    > It was never a bug. In theory what you write should be the case (and is

    ok
    > for a very light load), but practice tells me otherwise. Some RDBMS like
    > Oracle 8,9i or MS Access (Jet) are much less forgiving than SQL Server

    with
    > respect to not closing connections and recordsets. I have found this to

    be
    > the case with IIS 4, 5, 5.1. Load testing a classic ASP application will
    > make this immediately apparent.
    >
    > Microsoft/MSDN docs have consistently parroted all along that ADO

    recordsets
    > and connection objects should be explicitly closed. The same is true,

    even
    > more so for the .Net framework's datareader and connection objects. For
    > instance, it is not possible to (re)use another datareader on the

    connection
    > without closing the first. The result is an exception raised/run time
    > error.
    >
    > --
    > Peter O'Reilly
    >
    >
     
    George Ter-Saakov, Apr 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Re: Just say yes to closing objects

    > Hit it couple times then go to Enterprise Managment Managment/Current
    > Activity/Process Info and you will see only one connection.
    > So it's not necessary to close connection in an APS page. ADO closes it

    for
    > you as soon as object goes out of scope.


    Perhaps it's because you had to 2 Management consoles open - one for each
    connection connection. A couple of times, I see that's definitive and
    conclusive.

    Reread my message. What did I write about SQL Server? What did I write
    about load?

    > MSDN is wirtten by people and usually not by developers who actually

    created
    > ADO.


    I sure hope their writing is done by people(and not trolls, like here).
    Some may jibe that their marketing department writes them, but they are
    written by their technical staff many of them (software engineers) who have
    coded their various products including ADO.

    --
    Peter O'Reilly
     
    Peter O'Reilly, Apr 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Ah, yes. That's exactly right, George. :)

    --
    Kevin Spencer
    ..Net Developer
    Microsoft MVP
    Big things are made up
    of lots of little things.

    "George Ter-Saakov" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I am talking about ASP. Not ASP.NET.
    > In ASP.NET connection must be closed.
    > In ASP it's not necessary.
    >
    > George.
    >
    >
    > "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    > > > And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.

    > >
    > > Hang on a second, George. Connections DO need to be closed, or disposed.
    > > Setting objects to Nothing does Nothing. Closing Connections frees them

    up
    > > for re-use.
    > >
    > > --
    > > HTH,
    > > Kevin Spencer
    > > .Net Developer
    > > Microsoft MVP
    > > Big things are made up
    > > of lots of little things.
    > >
    > > "George Ter-Saakov" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > I was talking about ASP (not ASP.NET)
    > > > In ASP objects are released when they go out of scope.
    > > >
    > > > And there is not need to close connections or destroy objects.
    > > >
    > > > There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the

    cyclic
    > > > reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be

    > > closed
    > > > even if it goes out of scope.
    > > >
    > > > George.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "Curt_C [MVP]" <software_AT_darkfalz.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:ukRS$...
    > > > > > In ASP.
    > > > > > Connection does not need to be closed,
    > > > > > Object does not need to be destroyed.
    > > > > >
    > > > > not true really.... they will eventually go away, but in the

    meantime
    > > they
    > > > > can, and will, eat major resources. It's always better to explicitly
    > > > > close/kill them.
    > > > >
    > > > > > Also i bet that his ASP forms do not have any validations.
    > > > > >
    > > > > some of the ASP.NET ones are clientside though, and could be

    > replicated
    > > in
    > > > > ASP.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > --
    > > > > Curt Christianson
    > > > > Owner/Lead Developer, DF-Software
    > > > > www.Darkfalz.com
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Kevin Spencer, Apr 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Re: Just say yes to closing objects

    ASP Best practices for our company say to "close the connections". We have
    seen problems when connection are not explicitly closed, and that IS with
    SQL Server. If connections aren't closed, OLEDB starts to return an
    unspecified error after a while (depending on load) and the only way to get
    rid of it is to reboot or change the conncetion string to ODBC. We found
    the problem when converting to OLEDB from ODBC a while ago. ODBC doesn't
    seem to care, but OLEDB does.

    Andrea

    "George Ter-Saakov" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Yes. Do the test. I tested with MS SQL.
    > Create an ASP page (not asp.net)
    >
    > <%
    > Dim con
    > Set con = CreateObject("ADODB.Connection")
    > con.Open "Provider=SQLOLEDB.1;Password=test;Persist Security

    Info=True;User
    > ID=test;Initial Catalog=test;Data Source=test"
    > %>
    >
    > Hit it couple times then go to Enterprise Managment Managment/Current
    > Activity/Process Info and you will see only one connection.
    > So it's not necessary to close connection in an APS page. ADO closes it

    for
    > you as soon as object goes out of scope.
    > MSDN is wirtten by people and usually not by developers who actually

    created
    > ADO.
    >
    > BTW: It's practically impossible to write a clean ASP page which will

    close
    > connections in any case (exception, script timeout, ...)
    >
    >
    > George.
    >
    >
    > "Peter O'Reilly" <!N!O!.S!P!AM!> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > > There was a bug though in earlier versions of ADO when due to the

    cyclic
    > > > reference between recordset and connection the connection will not be

    > > closed
    > > > even if it goes out of scope.

    > >
    > > It was never a bug. In theory what you write should be the case (and is

    > ok
    > > for a very light load), but practice tells me otherwise. Some RDBMS

    like
    > > Oracle 8,9i or MS Access (Jet) are much less forgiving than SQL Server

    > with
    > > respect to not closing connections and recordsets. I have found this to

    > be
    > > the case with IIS 4, 5, 5.1. Load testing a classic ASP application

    will
    > > make this immediately apparent.
    > >
    > > Microsoft/MSDN docs have consistently parroted all along that ADO

    > recordsets
    > > and connection objects should be explicitly closed. The same is true,

    > even
    > > more so for the .Net framework's datareader and connection objects. For
    > > instance, it is not possible to (re)use another datareader on the

    > connection
    > > without closing the first. The result is an exception raised/run time
    > > error.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Peter O'Reilly
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    Andrea Williams, Apr 26, 2004
    #14
    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. Ham

    I need speed Mr .Net....speed

    Ham, Oct 28, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    2,344
    Antony Baula
    Oct 29, 2004
  2. efiedler
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,054
    Tim Ward
    Oct 9, 2003
  3. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,298
    Howard
    Apr 28, 2004
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    335
    Christopher Benson-Manica
    Apr 28, 2004
  5. Weng Lei-QCH1840
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    185
    Thomas
    Aug 15, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page