switching from ASP to ASP.NET

T

TB

Hi all:

After programming in VBS / ASP for a couple of years, I would like to make
the switch to VB.NET / ASP.NET.

I would therefore appreciate any recommendations for books that can take me
through the process, step by step.

As far as I understand, a new version of ASP.NET is on the way: 2.0. But
checking on Amazon.com, the best selling books on this subject are all a
couple of years old which would mean that they only cover the the current
version (1.1??).

Any suggestions / recommendations would be highly appreciated.

Thanks,

TB
 
B

Brock Allen

Fritz Onion's "Essential ASP.NET with examples in VB.NET" if you'd like to
stay away from semi-colons, or Fritz Onion's "Essential ASP.NET with examples
in C#" if you'd like to start typing them a lot more. This covers v1.1 but
much if not all still applies to v2.0 as the new 2.0 features are based upon
the 1.x model.
 
T

TB

Does this book explain the differences the two versions and explain how to
port existing classic ASP pages, or does it concentrate on teaching how
start new projects?

TB
 
T

TB

Does this book explain the differences the two versions and explain how to
port existing classic ASP pages, or does it concentrate on teaching how
start new projects?

TB
 
B

Brock Allen

If you mean the differences between C# and VB.NET, well, in general in ASP.NET
there are none.

If you mean the differences between ASP and ASP.NET, no, not really. Fritz's
book explains the underlying ASP.NET technology from the ground up. He doesn't
spend much (if any from what I can recall) on the wizards in VS.NET. IMO,
this is a good thing as it provides a clearer picture of what's really happening
in your code and how it relates to ASP.NET. It is certainly not a hand-holding
book in the sense that it leads you though steps leaving you at the end not
understanding how your code works.
 
B

Bob Lehmann

Does this book explain the differences the two versions
To me, this approach only complicates things. It's like trying to learn a
foreign language by making 1-to-1 translations on a sentence.

Bob Lehmann
 
T

TB

You see, I am a somewhat old dog trying to learn a new trick.

Therefore I thought my first step would be converting some of my previous
ASP project into .NET, thus learning by real examples. That would involve
(as far as I know) adapting existing VBS 6.0 code to VB.NET and then
swopping existing ASP features for their newer equivalents.

Afterwards I would start new projects.

Wouldn't that be a good way for old dogs to learn new stuff?

TB
 
T

TB

As I explained to Bob Lehman in another subthread, I am what you would call
an old dog trying to learn a new trick. Therefore my entire reference is VBS
and classic ASP. I would therefore think that the best approach for me would
be take one of my existing ASP projects and first change the VBS to VB.NET
and then change ASP calls to their new .NET equivalents.

Once I understand the mechanisms behind such an "upgrade", I would be
confident to start a new .NET project. Or is that like trying to learn
Chinese via Russian?

TB
 
B

Brock Allen

Yeah, the model is so different in ASP.NET it's sometimes best to start clean.
Whatever way you approach your ASP.NET investigation/learning I'd suggest
you forget most of what you knew from ASP. HTTP is the same, but the model
is so different in ASP.NET that doing things the "old way" can be a detriment.
 
G

Guest

Hi, if you mean you are trying to convert existing ASP projects by
reproducing their functionality in a new ASP.NET project, that sounds like a
good approach, because its easier to learn something when you are actually
trying to achieve a working product, instead of following some pointless
tutorials.

However, if you are trying to convert your ASP code line-by-line, i think
that is a bad idea and will only make you very frustrated. As you mentioned
earlier, it would be like trying to learn Chinese by studying Russian. If
you drop your preconceptions and habits from ASP, then you should find
ASP.NET to be much nicer to work with. One last bit of advice: don't rely
too much on the form designer when youre learning, because it may make it
harder to understand whats going on in your code.
 
T

TB

What I mean by converting existing projects (which are mostly database
intensive), is to learn ASP.NET task by task: user authentification, data
retrieval / modification / insertion, date / time calculations, etc. I don't
attempt a line-by-line "translation". I also hope to discover along the way
sufficient reasons to stick with this new initiativeof mine - because the
learning curve can be rather steep as far I have been told. And to be
perfectly honest, classic ASP solves 90% of my current tasks without
creating to many headaches, and another 5% with some funny work-arounds. But
I am ready to give ASP.NET a chance now that so many people are calling it
the most important thing invented since instant coffee.

I have also downloaded a trial version of Visual Studio Web Express 2005,
which I intend to use, although I am not overly impressed with that program.
First of all it doesn't have split view (code and design view at the same
time) - even the lowly Frontpage has that now - and secondly it only marks
up the HTML part of the code on my classic ASP pages, not any VBS (which is
just shown in black). But then perhaps I haven't learned yet how to use this
program correctly yet.

TB
 
J

jasonkester

TB said:
As I explained to Bob Lehman in another subthread, I am what you would call
an old dog trying to learn a new trick. Therefore my entire reference is VBS
and classic ASP. I would therefore think that the best approach for me would
be take one of my existing ASP projects and first change the VBS to VB.NET
and then change ASP calls to their new .NET equivalents.

This is what everybody tries first. You'll quickly find yourself
trying to wrap ADO.NET to look like ADO, and attempting to rewrite the
DataGrid control from scratch.

Learn from our mistakes. Don't go down that road. Jump in with both
feet, embrace the new stuff, and don't expect it to map back to the old
way of doing things. Try to maintain a healthy level of skepticism
about the magic of Drag & Drop Everything, but for the most part, go
nuts and bask in the simplicity that is web development under ASP.NET!

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/
 
T

TB

Skeptisism I have do have towards all this. Because, to be perfectly honest,
Classic ASP actually covers 90% of my needs without any problems plus
another 5% with some fiddling, so .NET really has to be really tasty for me
to want to unlearn everything I know to gain an extra 5% functionality. But
I am willing to try.

I not really a drag-and-drop person although I am firm believer in code
recycling. So I will not, as you suggest yourself, rewrite the datagrid for
each project.

BTW, you are the first person I have seen, claiming that .NET development is
"simple". Mostly what I hear is that "ASP.NET is a lot more complicated but
it is worth the pain because of [blah, blah]".

TB
 
B

Brock Allen

Well, putting on my marketing hat.
Skeptisism I have do have towards all this. Because, to be perfectly
honest, Classic ASP actually covers 90% of my needs without any
problems plus another 5% with some fiddling, so .NET really has to be
really tasty for me to want to unlearn everything I know to gain an
extra 5% functionality. But I am willing to try.

ASP.NET makes that 90% happen faster, meaning you're much more productive.
Also, ASP covers 90% of your current needs, but having the .NET runtime under
you gives you so much more functionality. Once I started working with .NET
I never wanted to go back to either C++ or ASP.

Ok, I'll take off my marketing hat now. :)
I not really a drag-and-drop person although I am firm believer in
code recycling. So I will not, as you suggest yourself, rewrite the
datagrid for each project.

I am with you on this one. I have a personal dislike for the designer and
I do 95% of all my web development in the HTML view (not the designer).
BTW, you are the first person I have seen, claiming that .NET
development is "simple". Mostly what I hear is that "ASP.NET is a lot
more complicated but it is worth the pain because of [blah, blah]".

Yes and no. Once you are comfortable with the abstractions affored to you
a developer then yes it does become simpler, in a sense. But to provide those
abstractions there is a lot of stuff under there, so it is more complex.
 
K

Kevin Spencer

Let me see if I can clarify what you said Brock.

OOP is "simpler" in a sense than procedural programming, because of things
like Encapsulation (which hides complexity), and Inheritance (which gives
you the ability to develop new classes from existing classes without having
to duplicate code). Procedural programming is fine for small projects, but
when one has a large, complex project, it can get very complicated to follow
the single thread of execution through the whole app. OOP allows things to
be "compartmentalized" so that you can deal only with those aspects of
things which you need to, and can ignore those aspects which you need to
ignore.

Big things are made up of lots of little things. In OOP, once you get one
little thing tested and right, you can ignore it, as its functionality is
encapsulated. Procedural programming has some aspects of this, with
functions, structures, etc, but lacks true encapsulation, and is, in
essence, one big thing, rather than true components.

You also have the advantage of being able to work at whatever level of
programming you need to, from massive classes that you can drag and drop in
the designer, all the way down to OS-level and even lower if you need it.

Due to its power, and the sheer immensity of the CLR, it seems more complex.
But in the long run, it means more development in less time, for someone who
knows how to take advantage of its features.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.


Brock Allen said:
Well, putting on my marketing hat.
Skeptisism I have do have towards all this. Because, to be perfectly
honest, Classic ASP actually covers 90% of my needs without any
problems plus another 5% with some fiddling, so .NET really has to be
really tasty for me to want to unlearn everything I know to gain an
extra 5% functionality. But I am willing to try.

ASP.NET makes that 90% happen faster, meaning you're much more productive.
Also, ASP covers 90% of your current needs, but having the .NET runtime
under you gives you so much more functionality. Once I started working
with .NET I never wanted to go back to either C++ or ASP.

Ok, I'll take off my marketing hat now. :)
I not really a drag-and-drop person although I am firm believer in
code recycling. So I will not, as you suggest yourself, rewrite the
datagrid for each project.

I am with you on this one. I have a personal dislike for the designer and
I do 95% of all my web development in the HTML view (not the designer).
BTW, you are the first person I have seen, claiming that .NET
development is "simple". Mostly what I hear is that "ASP.NET is a lot
more complicated but it is worth the pain because of [blah, blah]".

Yes and no. Once you are comfortable with the abstractions affored to you
a developer then yes it does become simpler, in a sense. But to provide
those abstractions there is a lot of stuff under there, so it is more
complex.
 
J

jasonkester

TB said:
Skeptisism I do have towards all this. Because, to be perfectly honest,
Classic ASP actually covers 90% of my needs without any problems plus
another 5% with some fiddling, so .NET really has to be really tasty for me
to want to unlearn everything I know to gain an extra 5% functionality. But
I am willing to try.

Actually, Classic ASP covers 100% of what you can do with ASP.NET. As
do Perl, PHP, ISAPI, JSP and Cold Fusion.

With .NET, you're buying Agility. You can develop fast, and you can
push your errors to the compile time so your code will be maintainable
and flexible. Major refactors stop being major. Testing stops being
just some guy in the corner clicking on screens. You may only get your
extra 5% of functionality, but you'll double your productivity and you
won't have to worry anymore about some innocuous table change breaking
everything.

Give it a try. I think you'll enjoy it.

Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/
 
K

Kevin Spencer

Actually, Classic ASP covers 100% of what you can do with ASP.NET. As
do Perl, PHP, ISAPI, JSP and Cold Fusion.

Not exactly true. ASP by itself can do very little. It relies on external
COM objects to do the heavy lifting. The difference is that you don't need
any external technology to do the work with ASP.Net.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.
 
J

jasonkester

Kevin said:
Not exactly true. ASP by itself can do very little. It relies on external
COM objects to do the heavy lifting.

As do Perl, PHP, ISAPI, JSP and Cold Fusion. As does ASP.NET for many
things (FTP for instance).

My point is that any technology can do anything. If you want a button
on a webpage that launches missles at China, you can pull it off in any
technology, given enough effort. ASP.NET just lets makes it easier and
less fragile.


using Government.Defence.Nuclear;

protected void btnNuke_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Exterminate(Targets.China);
}


Jason Kester
Expat Software Consulting Services
http://www.expatsoftware.com/
 
K

Kevin Spencer

ASP.Net does NOT rely on external technologies. Per your example, I have
written several FTP clients and services using the CLR alone.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
What You Seek Is What You Get.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top