Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Sell
What I want specifically is to stop working with klunky old ASP 3.0 and start using something that is closer in functionality to Visual Basic (if you catch my drift).
Of course I am writing alot of web apps in ASP 3.0 now but I have outgrown the scope of ASP 3.0 and am looking to evolve into something better but I know little about ASP.NET 1.x - not enough to know if it can satisfy my thirst for usefulness.
I guess I am wondering if ASP.NET 1.x is an evolutionary step above ASP 3.0 or if it is truly a revolutionary step above like ASP.NET 2.0 sounds to be...
What I read about ASP.NET 2.0 says that ASP.NET 2.0 is a revolutionary step above ASP 3.0 and I will see about beta testing it when it comes out in June. I guess I am wondering if I should skip messing with ASP.NET 1.x altogether or if I would greatly benefit from using it first and then gradually migrate into ASP.NET 2.0.
Thanks for advice so far - looking for more...
I think it doesn't matter. Just matters when you want to start deploying apps. If you want to wait till sometime in 2005 before you can get anything officially supported for asp.net 2.0, then ok, wait for 2.0. If you think you want to create and deploy something before this "Unknown" release date of 2.0, then use 1.1. Anything you learn by using 1.1 won't be worthless when you move to 2.0. The only thing 2.0 will do is let you write less code for common tasks. I am excited about 2.0, but not as much as I was that asp.net 1 took over classic asp. Classic ASP is like the stone age to me when you compare it to what is currently out in asp.net.