Compile versus not compile (VS 2005)??

[stupid48]

Ok,

I'm just a server guy with a bit a VS 2005 experience. I know that
you can deploy asp.net apps either compiled or not compiled. My
developer says that he prefers not to compile. I have to ask about
the pro's and con's of both. I'm especially concerned about
performance of each and the security pros and cons of each. Does
anyone have a theory on this and\or a link to a site that I can read?

Thanks very much and sorry if this was already asked before. I
couldn't find anything on it...

Thanks, Chris

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

The main difference between compiled and not is a short hit to turn the
page(s) into IL when they are hit. It is a very small perf bump and only
occurs once per deploy.

The bigger issue is having to deploy all of your source to the server. While
MS states it is safe, I would not personally risk it. Of course, the
compiled bits are not much better if one can compromise the bin folder, so
it is only marginally better. With publish (precompile) you can obfuscate
the assemblies, however.

I see absolutely no reason not to precompile, unless the developer is
writing his code in the ASPX page insstead of in code behind.