ASP vs ASP.NET -- inetserver asp components

WebMatrix
11/20/2004 8:43:08 AM

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.

[quoted text, click to view]

Laura K
11/20/2004 12:45:15 PM

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

[quoted text, click to view]

Bob Barrows [MVP]
11/20/2004 4:05:22 PM

[quoted text, click to view]

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

[quoted text, click to view]

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"

Patrick.O.Ige
11/20/2004 4:20:27 PM

Mr Jim Beam,
Are u anti microsoft?

[quoted text, click to view]

Laura K
11/20/2004 4:20:46 PM

I stand corrected

[quoted text, click to view]

Laura K
11/20/2004 4:23:32 PM

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
[quoted text, click to view]

WebMatrix
11/20/2004 8:24:38 PM

[quoted text, click to view]

"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

Paxton
11/20/2004 10:23:31 PM

[quoted text, click to view]

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

Egbert Nierop $MVP for IIS$
11/20/2004 10:44:15 PM

[quoted text, click to view]

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'.

[quoted text, click to view]

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.

[quoted text, click to view]

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.

[quoted text, click to view]

Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) - MVP
11/22/2004 10:55:36 AM

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

<asp:DataGrid 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!
***************************

[quoted text, click to view]

pchq45 NO[at]SPAM hotmail.com
11/22/2004 11:08:08 AM

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.... ;-)

[quoted text, click to view]

Nathan Sokalski
11/23/2004 1:06:48 AM

You may be right, I think I'll just have to wait and see (since I have to
take a course on ASP.NET in the Spring anyway). But one small comment on
what you said. You said:

more likely to get munged up by your FrontPage artist

I hate to tell you, but anyone who uses FrontPage shouldn't even be thinking
about making fancy web pages, FrontPage will screw up your code so badly
that it's going to be trash from the beginning anyway!

But thank you for your input, I with think about comparing those two things
while I am learning ASP.NET. I think I am just having trouble comparing them
since I have never seen or written a full ASP.NET page, which probably makes
it hard for me to see how good it is. I might also be scared about needing
to redo my website, since it is primarily ASP.
--
Nathan Sokalski
njsokalski@hotmail.com
www.nathansokalski.com

[quoted text, click to view]

jeff.nospam NO[at]SPAM zina.com
11/23/2004 11:44:58 AM

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:06:48 -0500, "Nathan Sokalski"
[quoted text, click to view]

Don't use FrontPage much do you? Just because you don't doesn't mean
it has no purpose.

[quoted text, click to view]

You don't need to "redo" an ASP site just because you started with
..NET coding. They can coexist fine.

Michael Geist
11/23/2004 12:27:03 PM

I am struggling with the same question but perhaps for different reasons. I
have been building web applications for about 7 years with (mostly) script
and some COM. I am comfortable with OOP and have taken several
Microsoft-designed ASP.NET courses including their ASP to ASP.NET course
(which in my opinion is a waste of time for anyone with more that a passing
familiarity with ASP) and the ASP.NET Bootcamp (more useful but still didn't
solve my problem). Not to sound discouraging, but I am not sure that
appreciating how and why ASP.NET works will resolve your dilema.
Most of my development is Intranet (IE 5.5+) based and, admittedly, I
frequently build funtionality with ASP that is more appropriate in COM or
ASP.NET but my issue is that I now have a great deal of reusable code
(infrastructure, if you will) and complex techniques that allow me to be VERY
productive with ASP. ASP.NET promises great reduction in development time
but for me it may mean months of a gnificantly longer development cycles
because I hardly know how to begin to create in .NET the pages and modules
that are second nature to me in classic.
Transitioning content and code from ASP to ASP.NET is one thing but does
anyone have suggestions for speeding the transition of skill and productivity?

Michael Geist
MCSD (6)

[quoted text, click to view]

Kevin Spencer
11/23/2004 4:08:15 PM

Hi Michael,

Your complaint (if I understand it correctly) is similar to the type of
complaints that surrounded OOP in general when it was first introduced. It
takes awhile to build a good library of reusable classes. There are several
upsides to this. First, once you have a good library of classes, you can
work very quickly in designing new applications. Second, Microsoft has
already built quite a few for you (in the CLR).

The biggest advantages of OOP over procedural programming come into play
with larger applications that may be extended or changed over time. OOP is
much better-organized, and encapsulation is a huge benefit. It is much
harder to write the kind of spaghetti code I've had to deal with over the
years with ASP. It is much easier to organize your code, and maintain it.
Rather than having libraries of functions, which is almost no organization,
you have libraries of classes. Each class, if well-designed is nicely
encapsulated, and modular. the larger and more complex an application is,
the greater will be the benefit.

As for speeding the transition of skill and productivity, well, practice
makes perfect.

If you stick with it long enough, you'll never want to look back.

--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
..Net Developer
Microsoft MVP
Neither a follower
nor a lender be.

[quoted text, click to view]

Jim Carlock
11/24/2004 12:59:00 AM

I knew this would come back to haunt me. :-)

I was searching microsoft.com. I've had quite a few problems
with XP over the last few weeks, not so much XP problems,
but Microsoft changed some things about Permissions with SP2
it seems. And I wanted to get IIS 5.1 working once again.

I agree most of the time you will get redirected to the proper
page but for some reason, that particular day I was redirected
to a new page, which in turn redirected me back to the original
redirecting page. And there was enough of a time lapse there
that it didn't crash Mozilla nor FireFox. Maybe Microsoft's
website is more oriented for Internet Explorer than it is for
Mozilla or FireFox. I wish I had kept a copy of the problematic
link.

As far as DEAD LINKS go, just open any MSDN article
from December 2001 issues of MSDN. These links sometimes
redirect and sometimes give a default DEAD LINK page. So
in effect what's happening is Microsoft has a DEFAULT DEAD
LINK page that is displayed and you don't get the 404 Page
Not Found message and in effect... there are no dead links.

I disagree though. There ARE dead links... I could list a thousand
if I wanted to spend all night copying and pasting... straight from
a 2001 issue of MSDN...

http://www.microsoft.com/workshop/author/htmlhelp/refov.asp

That particular link might have existed in 1998 or 1999. Time stands
still inside the articles they have written. Even though they break the
links, the articles STILL apply today just as they did in 1999, for
the most part.

Most of the tools I am working with are tools dated from 1998.
:-)

And I don't know what I was searching for but perhaps it was an
API name... InternetOpen or InternetConnect, because I was and
is having a problem with FTP through Internet Explorer and other
browsers and I'm getting a feeling that FTP through an application
is using InternetOpenURL. I was doing some searches for:
OnMouseOver and mouse_event as well... so no telling.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

"Ray Costanzo [MVP]" <my first name at lane 34 dot commercial> wrote in
message news:uT$WdOtzEHA.2568@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
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

[quoted text, click to view]

QuentinJS
11/24/2004 12:15:04 PM

I found using libraries of functions made this a rather painless task with
little copy/paste required. Its how you build your basic infrastructure
thats important.

Cheers,
Quentin JS

[quoted text, click to view]

Nathan Sokalski
11/24/2004 10:16:38 PM

You took the words right out of my mouth, I couldn't have said it better.
Maybe I stated my initial question unclearly, or maybe there's a lot of
biased responses, but I don't think anyone could have said my thoughts
better than you. Thanks.
--
Nathan Sokalski
njsokalski@hotmail.com
www.nathansokalski.com

[quoted text, click to view]

Virgilio Jeresano Jr.
11/29/2004 7:05:02 PM

I don't think there's a quick way on building transition from ASP to ASP.NET
because the two works on a very different way. I heard at a .NET conference
that the easy way to learn ASP/VB.NET is to forget about what you know on
core ASP/VB. I think I agree on that because learning on "what you think you
already knew" gets really frustrating when you can't get things done "youre
own way before".

I have been also programming in PHP before and I had fun on "in-line"
scripting, etc. But when I worked on ASP.NET, they take away that fun, but
the cool thing was, I didn't find myself re-writing (or copy-pasting) my
codes again and again on different objects on the page and/or on different
pages... that advantage alone makes me don't wanna go back, not to metion
the separation of design and code (codebehind) and other bunch stuff that you
can do and really had fun learning them and still learning them up to this
moment.

[quoted text, click to view]

Got something to say? Click here to post a reply to this thread.

Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.

View other messages about inetserver asp components

inetserver asp components : ASP vs ASP.NET