What the hell was Microsoft thinking?

Discussion in 'ASP .Net' started by saunderl@hotmail.com, Nov 11, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Hello Everyone,

    I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    rolled to various folders on the server.

    Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!

    All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.

    All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.

    L. Lee Saunders
    , Nov 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Whoa! Hold your horses.

    Download and install the Web Deployment Projects add-in :

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/reference/infrastructure/wdp/default.aspx

    "This add-in includes a new tool that enables you to merge
    the assemblies created during ASP.NET 2.0 precompilation"



    Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
    ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Everyone,
    >
    > I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    > "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    > in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    > to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    > rolled to various folders on the server.
    >
    > Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    > project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    > every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    > of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >
    > All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    > to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    > diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    > "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    > site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >
    > All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >
    > L. Lee Saunders
    >
    Juan T. Llibre, Nov 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce Barker Guest

    the VS group decided to stop battling the asp.net compiler. VS2005 now uses
    the asp.net compiler to build all asp.net sites. this is why VS has a
    Publish web site command that builds a clean dir tith what needs to be
    deployed.

    in 1.1 VS build 1 dll for the code behind, and asp.net build a dll per page
    but hide it a temp. in v2, VS uses the asp.net compiler to precompile the
    site, so you see all the page dlls.

    see the aspnet_compiler documentation to see what your automated build
    options are. look at fixednames option.

    -- bruce (sqlwork.com)


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Everyone,
    >
    > I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    > "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    > in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    > to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    > rolled to various folders on the server.
    >
    > Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    > project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    > every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    > of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >
    > All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    > to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    > diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    > "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    > site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >
    > All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >
    > L. Lee Saunders
    >
    Bruce Barker, Nov 11, 2005
    #3
  4. On 11 Nov 2005 13:03:00 -0800, wrote:

    > All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    > to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    > diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    > "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    > site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >
    > All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.


    Not to blame the victim here, but Microsoft has been making this stuff
    available for about TWO YEARS, and *NOW*, after it ships, you say "Hey,
    wait a minute, this doesn't work for me". Maybe you should have
    investigated the changes needed earlier, and then you could have given your
    feedback to Microsoft BEFORE they finalized the product.

    Ok, now that I have that off my chest (Sorry, It just bugs me when people
    are given access to the information for years ahead of time, and then they
    complain after its too late).

    You might want to read this article (coincidentally, it also shows how
    being involved in the process makes you proactive in getting what you
    need). It also explains WHAT they were thinking.

    http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryID/195/Default.aspx
    Erik Funkenbusch, Nov 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Chris Botha Guest

    Hear, hear, I can't agree with you more. Hopefully they will add this soon.

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Everyone,
    >
    > I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    > "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    > in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    > to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    > rolled to various folders on the server.
    >
    > Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    > project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    > every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    > of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >
    > All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    > to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    > diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    > "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    > site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >
    > All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >
    > L. Lee Saunders
    >
    Chris Botha, Nov 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Chris Botha Guest

    Darn, if only I knew this two years ago and gave my feedback! Think it would
    have helped?

    "Erik Funkenbusch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 11 Nov 2005 13:03:00 -0800, wrote:
    >
    >> All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    >> to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    >> diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    >> "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    >> site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >>
    >> All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.

    >
    > Not to blame the victim here, but Microsoft has been making this stuff
    > available for about TWO YEARS, and *NOW*, after it ships, you say "Hey,
    > wait a minute, this doesn't work for me". Maybe you should have
    > investigated the changes needed earlier, and then you could have given
    > your
    > feedback to Microsoft BEFORE they finalized the product.
    >
    > Ok, now that I have that off my chest (Sorry, It just bugs me when people
    > are given access to the information for years ahead of time, and then they
    > complain after its too late).
    >
    > You might want to read this article (coincidentally, it also shows how
    > being involved in the process makes you proactive in getting what you
    > need). It also explains WHAT they were thinking.
    >
    > http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryID/195/Default.aspx
    Chris Botha, Nov 12, 2005
    #6
  7. PL Guest

    Try learning it instead.

    PL

    "Chris Botha" <> skrev i meddelandet news:%...
    > Hear, hear, I can't agree with you more. Hopefully they will add this soon.
    >
    > <> wrote in message news:...
    >> Hello Everyone,
    >>
    >> I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    >> "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    >> in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    >> to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    >> rolled to various folders on the server.
    >>
    >> Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    >> project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    >> every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    >> of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >>
    >> All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    >> to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    >> diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    >> "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    >> site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >>
    >> All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >>
    >> L. Lee Saunders
    >>

    >
    >
    PL, Nov 12, 2005
    #7
  8. Chris Botha Guest

    Instead of what?

    "PL" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Try learning it instead.
    >
    > PL
    >
    > "Chris Botha" <> skrev i meddelandet
    > news:%...
    >> Hear, hear, I can't agree with you more. Hopefully they will add this
    >> soon.
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Hello Everyone,
    >>>
    >>> I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    >>> "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    >>> in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    >>> to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    >>> rolled to various folders on the server.
    >>>
    >>> Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    >>> project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    >>> every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    >>> of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >>>
    >>> All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    >>> to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    >>> diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    >>> "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    >>> site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >>>
    >>> All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >>>
    >>> L. Lee Saunders
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Chris Botha, Nov 12, 2005
    #8
  9. This whole thing is a non-issue and Microsoft has been working
    on a solution for this for quite a long time, as blogged on by
    Scott Guthrie for several months now.

    The tool which solves this problem, the "Visual Studio 2005 Web
    Deployment Projects" Add-in for VS 2005, is available *now* at :

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/asp.net/reference/infrastructure/wdp/default.aspx

    "This add-in includes a new tool that enables you to merge the assemblies
    created during ASP.NET 2.0 precompilation, and it provides a comprehensive
    UI within Visual Studio 2005 for managing build configurations, merging,
    and pre-build and post-build task using MSBuild."

    "A Web Deployment Project creates and maintains an MSBuild project file,
    and is associated in a solution with a Web site project.

    A Web Deployment Project enables you to manage not only build configuration
    and merge options, but other tasks such as specifying changes for the application's
    Web.config file during compilation, changing connection strings, creating virtual
    directories, and performing other tasks at specific points in the deployment process.

    The new assembly merge tool (Aspnet_merge.exe) combines assemblies created
    during ASP.NET 2.0 precompilation for deployment. The tool supports many merge
    options, from combining assemblies for each Web site folder to creating a single
    assembly for the entire Web site."

    Don't forget to download these very helpful documents :

    "Using Web Deployment Projects with Visual Studio 2005"
    http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=55638

    and
    "Managing ASP.NET Pre-compiled Outputs with Aspnet_merge.exe Command"
    http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=55639




    Juan T. Llibre, ASP.NET MVP
    ASP.NET FAQ : http://asp.net.do/faq/
    ASPNETFAQ.COM : http://www.aspnetfaq.com/
    Foros de ASP.NET en Español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
    ======================================
    "Erik Funkenbusch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 11 Nov 2005 13:03:00 -0800, wrote:
    >
    >> All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    >> to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    >> diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    >> "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    >> site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >>
    >> All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.


    > Not to blame the victim here, but Microsoft has been making this stuff
    > available for about TWO YEARS, and *NOW*, after it ships, you say "Hey,
    > wait a minute, this doesn't work for me". Maybe you should have
    > investigated the changes needed earlier, and then you could have given your
    > feedback to Microsoft BEFORE they finalized the product.
    >
    > Ok, now that I have that off my chest (Sorry, It just bugs me when people
    > are given access to the information for years ahead of time, and then they
    > complain after its too late).
    >
    > You might want to read this article (coincidentally, it also shows how
    > being involved in the process makes you proactive in getting what you
    > need). It also explains WHAT they were thinking.
    >
    > http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/Blogs/tabid/825/EntryID/195/Default.aspx
    Juan T. Llibre, Nov 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Jon Paal Guest

    I appreciate your frustration. Moving to ASP.net 2.0 is another huge shift. I have many clients on ASP.net 1.x and they will
    likely never upgrade to 2.0

    This leaves developers with the ever growing problem of maintaining 3 independent versions of ASP websites. The classic ASP, the
    ASP.net 1.x and now the ASP.net 2.0

    Not a very attractive prospect.


    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Knowledge comes and goes, but wisdom lingers









    <> wrote in message news:...
    > Hello Everyone,
    >
    > I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    > "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    > in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    > to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    > rolled to various folders on the server.
    >
    > Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    > project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    > every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    > of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >
    > All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    > to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    > diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    > "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    > site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >
    > All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >
    > L. Lee Saunders
    >
    Jon Paal, Nov 12, 2005
    #10
  11. > This leaves developers with the ever growing problem of maintaining 3
    > independent versions of ASP websites. The classic ASP, the ASP.net 1.x
    > and now the ASP.net 2.0
    >
    > Not a very attractive prospect.


    This sort of dilemma is something we all (including Microsoft) struggle
    with.

    The question of when to apply a band-aid, and when to perform major surgery
    and break the existing model, is one which every good developer agonizes
    over. Every good programmer is a perfectionist, and that is a good thing.
    However, every programmer, good and bad, must deal with the reality that
    perfection is only something that can be approached, and never achieved. The
    points where the compromise is finally made, are the points of the horns of
    this dilemma.

    The good news is, as we all do struggle with it, we are relatively no worse
    off nor better off than anyone else. The playing field remains level and
    intact.

    --
    HTH,

    Kevin Spencer
    Microsoft MVP
    ..Net Developer
    There's a seeker born every minute.
    - Dr. "Happy" Harry Cox

    "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I appreciate your frustration. Moving to ASP.net 2.0 is another huge
    >shift. I have many clients on ASP.net 1.x and they will likely never
    >upgrade to 2.0
    >
    > This leaves developers with the ever growing problem of maintaining 3
    > independent versions of ASP websites. The classic ASP, the ASP.net 1.x
    > and now the ASP.net 2.0
    >
    > Not a very attractive prospect.
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------------------------------
    > Knowledge comes and goes, but wisdom lingers
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hello Everyone,
    >>
    >> I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    >> "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    >> in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    >> to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    >> rolled to various folders on the server.
    >>
    >> Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    >> project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    >> every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    >> of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >>
    >> All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    >> to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    >> diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    >> "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    >> site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >>
    >> All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >>
    >> L. Lee Saunders
    >>

    >
    >
    Kevin Spencer, Nov 13, 2005
    #11
  12. Mark Rae Guest

    "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message
    news:...

    >I appreciate your frustration. Moving to ASP.net 2.0 is another huge
    >shift. I have many clients on ASP.net 1.x and they will likely never
    >upgrade to 2.0
    >
    > This leaves developers with the ever growing problem of maintaining 3
    > independent versions of ASP websites. The classic ASP, the ASP.net 1.x
    > and now the ASP.net 2.0


    I find Microsoft Virtual PC absolutely invaluable for this sort of
    situation, and also for testing and support.

    Currently, I only have one ASP classic site still in production and under
    support - you may laugh, but it runs on NT4, MTS2 & SQL Server 6.5!!! Still,
    the client pays an annual five-figure sum for support and, by now, the
    system is so stable that I haven't received a single support call in over
    two years... Every so often, we exchange emails about upgrading, but it
    still hasn't happened. Therefore, I have a VPC built with exactly this
    configuration, totally isolated from the rest of my system.

    I have 13 v1.1 sites in production, five of which have been fully upgraded
    to v2.0 and are ready to roll out. However, although my ISP supports v2.0
    (and has done all through the Go-Live beta), they will not be upgrading to
    SQL Server 2005 for a month or so, so I'm waiting until then before rolling
    these five sites out to the public internet. My ISP is also about to start
    supporting SQL Server Reporting Services, which means I can *finally* ditch
    Crystal Reports - hurrah!

    I've just ordered a new development box which will only have v2.0 of the
    Framework on it. It will have a large VPC with VS.NET 2003 & SQL Server 2000
    on it for as long as it needs to.

    VPC is also fantastic for testing and support. E.g. if I get a support call
    in response to a web error, I can tell from the contents of the error email
    precisely the version of Windows and make, model and version of the browser
    so I can simulate the user's environment very closely. E.g. if the error
    email says the user was using Windows XP Home and FireFox, I can have a test
    system in VPC using exactly that configuration in less than 30 minutes.

    I'm currently evaluating the pros and cons of buying a Mac Mini for testing
    and support purposes. I've always resisted this but, since the Mac Mini
    supports both Mac & PC periperhals (keyboard, video & mouse) it will fit
    straight into my KVM, so I think the time has come...
    Mark Rae, Nov 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Jon Paal Guest

    It appears that some are not enduring the same level of difficulty.
    PHP has been evolving for 10 years and at version 5 still appears to be far more backward compatible.



    "Kevin Spencer" <> wrote in message news:...
    >> This leaves developers with the ever growing problem of maintaining 3 independent versions of ASP websites. The classic ASP, the
    >> ASP.net 1.x and now the ASP.net 2.0
    >>
    >> Not a very attractive prospect.

    >
    > This sort of dilemma is something we all (including Microsoft) struggle with.
    >
    > The question of when to apply a band-aid, and when to perform major surgery and break the existing model, is one which every good
    > developer agonizes over. Every good programmer is a perfectionist, and that is a good thing. However, every programmer, good and
    > bad, must deal with the reality that perfection is only something that can be approached, and never achieved. The points where the
    > compromise is finally made, are the points of the horns of this dilemma.
    >
    > The good news is, as we all do struggle with it, we are relatively no worse off nor better off than anyone else. The playing field
    > remains level and intact.
    >
    > --
    > HTH,
    >
    > Kevin Spencer
    > Microsoft MVP
    > .Net Developer
    > There's a seeker born every minute.
    > - Dr. "Happy" Harry Cox
    >
    > "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message news:...
    >>I appreciate your frustration. Moving to ASP.net 2.0 is another huge shift. I have many clients on ASP.net 1.x and they will
    >>likely never upgrade to 2.0
    >>
    >> This leaves developers with the ever growing problem of maintaining 3 independent versions of ASP websites. The classic ASP, the
    >> ASP.net 1.x and now the ASP.net 2.0
    >>
    >> Not a very attractive prospect.
    >>
    >>
    >> ---------------------------------------------------------
    >> Knowledge comes and goes, but wisdom lingers
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message news:...
    >>> Hello Everyone,
    >>>
    >>> I'm a lead developer of a ASP.Net site. We have over 150
    >>> "applications" running at our site. Each application is a "Solution"
    >>> in VS. When we roll to test and production, the main dlls are rolled
    >>> to the sites single bin directory and the aspx, asmx etc files are
    >>> rolled to various folders on the server.
    >>>
    >>> Now with ASP.Net 2.0 they changed everything. No longer is a web
    >>> project a project, its a SITE. The dll names are mangled and renamed
    >>> every time its published. What used to be just references are now part
    >>> of the soruce control, as if I want compiled dlls in sourcesafe!
    >>>
    >>> All told, after two weeks of looking to move to ASP.net 2.0, I'll have
    >>> to say that "It will not happen!" They have made managing a large,
    >>> diverse site like ours impossible. Sure, Microsoft gave us lots of
    >>> "Wiz Bang" stuff for the kiddies, but really screwed the large scale
    >>> site developers, or so it at least seems to my team.
    >>>
    >>> All told, I think that Microsoft REALLY screwed the pooch on this one.
    >>>
    >>> L. Lee Saunders
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Jon Paal, Nov 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Mark Rae Guest

    "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message
    news:O40Rg$...

    > It appears that some are not enduring the same level of difficulty.
    > PHP has been evolving for 10 years and at version 5 still appears to be
    > far more backward compatible.


    So why not stick with that...?
    Mark Rae, Nov 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Chris Botha Guest

    I am still agreeing with the "What the hell was Microsoft thinking?"
    I am not a Web developer exclusively but have pushed out a number of fair to
    biggish sized Web apps since VS2003 and I am very (sort of extremely)
    comfortable with how everything works.
    There are some valuable new controls in the new release, and this is
    expected, but someone still has to point out the value of the new improved
    structure and some other constraints I bumped into when converting a
    smallish 2003 project to 2005 (23 forms and 21 user controls took me more
    than a day, relative I guess, maybe I am slow).
    I would have said have them both then, the old structure/concept and the new
    improved one for people with more time on their hands.


    "Mark Rae" <> wrote in message
    news:uR%...
    > "Jon Paal" <Jon nospam Paal @ everywhere dot com> wrote in message
    > news:O40Rg$...
    >
    >> It appears that some are not enduring the same level of difficulty.
    >> PHP has been evolving for 10 years and at version 5 still appears to be
    >> far more backward compatible.

    >
    > So why not stick with that...?
    >
    Chris Botha, Nov 13, 2005
    #15
    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. Charles A. Lackman
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,323
    smith
    Dec 8, 2004
  2. SpamProof
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    530
    SpamProof
    Oct 21, 2003
  3. Homa
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    439
    John Saunders
    Nov 16, 2003
  4. Toni
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    755
    Bob Barrows
    Sep 28, 2010
  5. optimistx

    Linear thinking vs essential thinking

    optimistx, Oct 28, 2009, in forum: Javascript
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    167
    Dr J R Stockton
    Oct 29, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page