ASP vs ASP.NET

[Nathan Sokalski]

I was recently looking at a page about transitioning from ASP 3.0 to
ASP.NET. (The page I was looking at is located at
http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041601-1.shtml ). It looks to me like
they are taking away what has always seemed to me like the beauty of ASP. I
always viewed the beauty of ASP as giving you the ability to fill in the
dynamic areas without the need to change your HTML layout techniques. But
ASP.NET seems to be trying to make you replace all HTML elements with
ASP.NET code. For example, on the page I mentioned, notice how ASP.NET code
is used to create the submit button even though the submit button does not
have any dynamic areas. Also, when initially designing a page, I have always
preferred to create it with HTML to make it look the way I want and then
replace the dynamic areas with ASP. And just out of curiosity, for anyone
who might know, will the "View Source" look the same? Because this is one of
the primary tools to make sure the code is producing what I want, I need
this to look the same as it would using ASP. Does anyone else have an
opinion on whether ASP.NET is really better? Even though I have not yet
learned much about coding in ASP.NET, what I have seen makes me lean towards
ASP 3.0.

 

[clintonG]

Then you have more to learn. Lots more.

 

[Daniel M. Hendricks]

I was recently looking at a page about transitioning from ASP 3.0 to
ASP.NET. (The page I was looking at is located at
http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041601-1.shtml ). It looks to me like
they are taking away what has always seemed to me like the beauty of ASP. I
always viewed the beauty of ASP as giving you the ability to fill in the
dynamic areas without the need to change your HTML layout techniques. But
ASP.NET seems to be trying to make you replace all HTML elements with
ASP.NET code. For example, on the page I mentioned, notice how ASP.NET code
is used to create the submit button even though the submit button does not
have any dynamic areas.

Once you get used to ASP.NET conventions, you will never look back. You
do not HAVE to make a submit button as an ASP.NET web control, however,
you have access to additional features and benefits if you do (like
viewstate and easier event scripting).

Also, when initially designing a page, I have always
preferred to create it with HTML to make it look the way I want and then
replace the dynamic areas with ASP. And just out of curiosity, for anyone
who might know, will the "View Source" look the same? Because this is one of
the primary tools to make sure the code is producing what I want, I need
this to look the same as it would using ASP. Does anyone else have an
opinion on whether ASP.NET is really better? Even though I have not yet
learned much about coding in ASP.NET, what I have seen makes me lean towards
ASP 3.0.

View source should look pretty much the same, since it's all client
side. ASP.NET adds some special things (and sometimes makes the
client-side code look ugly), but it's worth it. I used to be a PHP/ASP
programmer. Learning ASP.NET was like pulling teeth. But once I got
used to it I wouldn't program any other way. I appreciate the advanced
features of ASP.NET and the .NET framework.

Just keep trying,
Daniel
http://www.danhendricks.com

 

[Jim Carlock]

I'll give a counterpoint.

1) Take a look at the speed on Microsoft's own website.
2) Take a look at the broken links, missing pages, and the
common mis-use of redirection.
3) Microsoft ABUSES redirection.
4) In all their abuse of redirection, they still have broken links.

Realize these points...

1) Microsoft HAS the FASTEST computers in the world.
2) Microsoft HAS the FASTEST networks in the world.
3) Microsoft EMPLOYS the most SKILLED people in the world.
4) Microsoft BUILT the webservers they use.
5) There is NO EXCUSE at Microsoft (they have alot of problems).

AND WITH everything they know, ask yourself if www.microsoft.com
runs as fast as it could. And if it doesn't run as fast as a webpage
should, what is the biggest limiting factor? Could the Microsoft
employees do a better job with php or coldfusion or even with
ASP.Net ?

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

I was recently looking at a page about transitioning from ASP 3.0 to
ASP.NET. (The page I was looking at is located at
http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041601-1.shtml ). It looks to me like
they are taking away what has always seemed to me like the beauty of ASP. I
always viewed the beauty of ASP as giving you the ability to fill in the
dynamic areas without the need to change your HTML layout techniques. But
ASP.NET seems to be trying to make you replace all HTML elements with
ASP.NET code. For example, on the page I mentioned, notice how ASP.NET code
is used to create the submit button even though the submit button does not
have any dynamic areas. Also, when initially designing a page, I have always
preferred to create it with HTML to make it look the way I want and then
replace the dynamic areas with ASP. And just out of curiosity, for anyone
who might know, will the "View Source" look the same? Because this is one of
the primary tools to make sure the code is producing what I want, I need
this to look the same as it would using ASP. Does anyone else have an
opinion on whether ASP.NET is really better? Even though I have not yet
learned much about coding in ASP.NET, what I have seen makes me lean towards
ASP 3.0.

 

[Ted Dawson]

I haven't the foggiest idea of what the **** you are trying to say. Please
dumb it down a bit for us ASP/VBScript folks.

 

[Patrick.O.Ige]

Mr Jim Beam,
Are u anti microsoft?

 

[Nathan Sokalski]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you said about Microsoft,
because that has almost nothing to do with my question. My question was
asking what other people's opinions were as to their preferences and
advantages/disadvantages between ASP and ASP.NET were. I will let you know,
however, that I think Microsoft's website is one of the most poorly designed
sites I have ever seen, and many of my friends agree. Maybe if we get lucky
they will improve it if they ever decide to convert it to XML, since they
have been doing a lot of work on XML technologies (although I'm not going to
get my hopes up!).

 

[Jim Carlock]

I am NOT anti-microsoft.

Just pointing out some things they can improve upon. They can
improve things. I don't know how many endless redirection loops
I ran into last week, but it was more than one. ;-)

You know, that's where one redirection sends you to a page that
sends you back to the initial page so your browser goes into an
endless loop of GET GET GET GET GETting two different pages.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

Mr Jim Beam,
Are u anti microsoft?

 

[Ray Costanzo [MVP]]

I'm not sure what microsoft.com site you're visiting, but I have to say that
I've always been quite impressed the how rare it is that I come across dead
links on a site that literally has millions of files...

Ray at home

 

[Rick Strahl [MVP]]

Do you even understand the words that are coming out of your mouth?

Sheesh...

Convert a Web site/page to XML...

+++ Rick ---

--

Rick Strahl
West Wind Technologies
http://www.west-wind.com/
http://www.west-wind.com/weblog/
http://www.west-wind.com/wwThreads/

 

[Guest]

Nathan,

I think before reading that article, you should read up more on the basic
concepts of web / browsers technology.
Why would you expect to see anything other than standart HTML if you "view
source". It doesn't matter what generated that page ASP, ASP.NET, PHP,
ColdFusion whatever, browser can only understand HTML. And why would it
matter if MS would 'convert' their site to XML, they might be running XML on
the back-end anyway for all we know, but again at some point it has to be
converted to HTML, that's all that browsers can understand.
As far as your ASP vs. ASP.NET concerns... again all ASP.NET elements either
server control tags or server control objects in the code will be rendered as
HTML eventually. You can still have static HTML in your page, just embed
server side controls where dynamic elements should go. But the advantages of
that are enormous; you have so much programming control over a web page and
its elements.
If you were asked to develop a page that displays over thousands records,
users want to be able to page through records, say 20 rec per page, and also
they want to be able to sort by columns asc/desc. How long would it take you
to develop something like that in ASP? How many lines of code would it take?
Well, in ASP.NET I could put together a page like that in 20-30 min without a
lot of coding. Taking a coffee break in between.

 

[Laura K]

To clarify why in asp.net you are replacing HTML with ASP controls there is
a simple answer. HTML code is client side. That means you are at the mercy
of the browser. Different browsers render different pieces of code
differently and you can not control the output without complicated code that
detects the different browsers and renders you page appropriately.

With asp.net the same objects like textboxes, drop downs etc are created on
the server side. This means it does not matter what browser you are using
they will look like you want them. Also with asp.net you have more control
over how the controls will look. For example background colors, sizes etc.
Of course I believe CSS is a better option for these things.

As for other features of ASP vs. ASP.net, comparing the two are like
comparing the sprout to the jolly green giant (sorry it was the only example
to come into my head). ASP is a scripting language with a lot of
limitations. ASP.NET is a full blown OOP. You have an incredible amount of
options already provided for you that you would otherwise have to hand code
in ASP 3.0. ASP.NET provides controls that you can grab and use.
Unfortunately there are so many different options in ASP.NET it is sometimes
impossible to know what is available. So keep asking on message boards.

Now I am still learning all I can about ASP and it has been tough. I have
so far taken two graduate level courses in VB.NET and I am still suffering
but I believe it will be worth it. I think a major thing about moving over
to ASP.NET is it takes more hard core programming skill while almost anyone
can get by in asp.

One last thing. I can not remember where on the Microsoft site I saw this
but asp 3.0 will no longer be supported within a few years. Why create a
website that you know will be obsolete soon when you can create something
state of the art instead.

Laura K

 

[Bob Barrows [MVP]]

ASP is a scripting language with a
lot of limitations.

No it isn't. It's a "platform" that supports the use of several scripting
languages.

ASP.NET is a full blown OOP.

Again. It is not the language: it is a platform which supports several .Net
languages, including VB.Net and C#

I know this seems pedantic, but people need to understand the tools they are
using.

Bob Barrows

 

[Egbert Nierop \(MVP for IIS\)]

I was recently looking at a page about transitioning from ASP 3.0 to

ASP.NET. (The page I was looking at is located at
http://www.4guysfromrolla.com/webtech/041601-1.shtml ). It looks to me like
they are taking away what has always seemed to me like the beauty of ASP. I

Have you ever done grids on ASP 3.0 (without buying 3th party controls) or
filtering or templates or powerfull SOAP or interop with Windows API's? With
classic ASP, it's a mess and very difficult, more, if you use custom
components (say a component that does HTTP GET), you have a high risk of
leaks and hangs. That is easy with ASP.NET (Grids and full power API's
behind it). I've never had to reset ASP.NET because of 'hanging code'.

always viewed the beauty of ASP as giving you the ability to fill in the
dynamic areas without the need to change your HTML layout techniques. But
ASP.NET seems to be trying to make you replace all HTML elements with
ASP.NET code. For example, on the page I mentioned, notice how ASP.NET
code is used to create the submit button even though the submit button
does not have any dynamic areas. Also, when initially designing a page, I
have always preferred to create it with HTML to make it look the way I
want and then replace the dynamic areas with ASP. And just out of
curiosity, for anyone who might know, will the "View Source" look the
same? Because this is one of

If you get used to the power of ASP.NET you'll discover that you can use
classic programming as with asp 3.0 and modern OOP oriented programming.
Sometimes you really need to insert static HTML in your code, and then a
LiteralControl or simply response.write will do.

the primary tools to make sure the code is producing what I want, I need
this to look the same as it would using ASP. Does anyone else have an
opinion on whether ASP.NET is really better? Even though I have not yet

yes, nothing in ASP.NET is worse than ASP 3.0. Just get used to powerfull
programming in ASP.NET and you can reach anything you want as with asp 3.0
and even much more.

 

[Paxton]

Nathan,

If you were asked to develop a page that displays over thousands records,
users want to be able to page through records, say 20 rec per page, and
also
they want to be able to sort by columns asc/desc. How long would it take
you
to develop something like that in ASP? How many lines of code would it
take?
Well, in ASP.NET I could put together a page like that in 20-30 min
without a
lot of coding. Taking a coffee break in between.

It doesn't take me very much longer in classic ASP. It's called *code
reuse*. Although the .NET datagrid control is very good.

<musing>I wonder how many .NET sites have inappropriate calendars stuffed
into them though........</musing>

P

 

[Laura K]

I stand corrected

No it isn't. It's a "platform" that supports the use of several scripting
languages.


Again. It is not the language: it is a platform which supports several
.Net languages, including VB.Net and C#

I know this seems pedantic, but people need to understand the tools they
are using.

Bob Barrows
--
Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
"NO SPAM"

 

[Laura K]

I assume you are talking about using the datagrid.

If so how long would it take you to do pagination with the datalist or
repeat region.

I recently had a big time problem with pagination and the datalist.

Laura

 

[Guest]

It doesn't take me very much longer in classic ASP. It's called *code

reuse*. Although the .NET datagrid control is very good.

"code reuse" in this case means copy/paste existing script into another ASP
file. And I bet it's a LOT OF "classic" spaghetti script + html. I am
talking about starting from scratch and having a few lines of code that are
easier to maintain.

 

[Guest]

Overall, ASP uses a looping methodology, while ASP.NET uses a binding
methodology. Once you make the mental shift necessary to understand it, you
find it far more beautiful than ASP as you have a true separation of tags and
code (UI versus dynamic code by your vernacular).

The 3 guys article is likely to be an early article where the code was not
placed in CodeBehind. Thus, it looks messier. Once you learn to bind, it
comes down to the following example:

<% Do until objRS.EOF %>
<tr>
<td>
<%=objRS(0)%>
</td>
</tr>
<% Loop %>

etc.

versus

<aspataGrid id="DataGrid1" %>

In codeBehind

DataGrid1.DataSource = objDataReader

The first example is far messier and more likely to get munged up by your
FrontPage artist than the second.

Just my two cents, but all of the "ASP is better" arguments I have seen rely
on bad examples in ASP.NET (moving ASP methodology into ASP.NET code world).

---

Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA

***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************

 

[Peter Chong]

When They do not have an clear answer or they want loosing folks for
asking question in fashion, MS just passing the buck to another like
redirect people to heck out of it, that is powerplay from Microsoft.
We just powerless and asking mercy from big corporation.
That's not a MS problem, Corporation problem.... ;-)