Do you develop in ASP 3.0?

[mendhak]

http://www.vbforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4

The forum is dying, where months ago it was one of the most active forums on these boards. Of course, I understand there has been a transition from ASP to ASP.NET, I just didn't expect it to be so dramatic.

So, any Classic ASP 3.0 developers out there? Why are you still using ASP 3.0?

[RhinoBull]

... Of course, I understand there has been a transition from ASP to ASP.NET, I just didn't expect it to be so dramatic.

I don't do much web development - only when it's needed. With the introduction of ASP.Net even I realized how significatnt was the difference so I never looked back there after. We even converted few web apps to asp.net . The older ones (asp 2.0) are getting completely redesigned very soon.

[rory]

still do and dont expect to change to .net any time soon as ASP works great for me. .Net has nothing to offer me that I don't already have so there is no need to change.

Forums are only going to be active if there are people there to answer questions .. myself ive been busy last few months so Ive drifted away.

[RobDog888]

There is a big change from ASP to ASP.NET. The reasons to change are countless.

[rory]

post one ..

now remember there is nothing i cant do in classic ASP .. so you really have to sell me on the more expensive and time consuming upgrade. If its simply to do with salary or jobs available, count me out, as I work for myself.

[RhinoBull]

post one ..

now remember there is nothing i cant do in classic ASP .. so you really have to sell me on the more expensive and time consuming upgrade. If its simply to do with salary or jobs available, count me out, as I work for myself.

Until the introduction of ASP.Net asp was never an enterprise tool. You could just open a notepad and start "programming".
With the release of ASP.Net 1.0 back in (I think) 2000 things were changed by probably 720 degrees..
You now have a true development framework, event driven environment, multiple languages of your choice that are backed by the entire .Net Framework. Designing any page has basically become a breeze but not without some drawbacks but those are much less then in ASP.Classic however.
For the first time you can actually build fully object oriented web model and not rely on any scripting languages that is as robust as it would be in the windows app.
ASP.Net 2.0 is even better ...

As Rob said list can go on and on...

[rory]

nah .. doesnt make me want to change .. i know what ASP.net does, i looked at it when it first was released .. in the end it is not a windows client application, it is still just a webpage and is dependant on the user's browser, and that pretty much kills the Enterprise application idea.

I can open up Notepad and make a super fast working ASP page from scratch in well like 2 seconds ..

[RhinoBull]

OK then...

[RobDog888]

nah .. doesnt make me want to change .. i know what ASP.net does, i looked at it when it first was released .. in the end it is not a windows client application, it is still just a webpage and is dependant on the user's browser, and that pretty much kills the Enterprise application idea.

I can open up Notepad and make a super fast working ASP page from scratch in well like 2 seconds ..

Just a webpage! Not even close. I work with one Enterprise size solution that is totally web based and even has CR integrated into it.

Check out JobBOSS and tell me its just a webpage

[rory]

Just a webpage! Not even close. I work with one Enterprise size solution that is totally web based and even has CR integrated into it.

Check out JobBOSS and tell me its just a webpage

thats lite.. ive done much more advanced web based code than that...

either way, its limitation is that it must use a web browser, and that WILL ALWAYS be a limitation with any browser based app.

I was trying to figure out why you guys think asp.net is so great, but i've come to the conclusion that noone here has had any experience with asp to begin with.
take asp to the extreme and you will see why it rocks

[RobDog888]

You know what, That is basically an insult as if you had the smallest idea of what JobBoss is and does and its vast capabilities you would not have made that statement. Not too mention my own several years of experience. I know what ASP is and what ASP.NET is and from other threads I have seen you in I can tell that you have a resistance to change to anything at all. I seem to remember a quote about how great you thought Windows 98 is still.

[penagate]

Watch out, he'll make some "real world" quip now.

[rory]

Microsoft Windows Me.. not 98 arghhhh... and sorry I just dont like "slow" operating systems ... they should have just tried to fixed '95 and tried less to flood the OS with pretty backgrounds. Windows XP is great though once you tweak the heck out of it and ofcourse install SP2. Its the main reason I now use PC based DVR Cards.

and not meant as an insult. but noone has shown any real knowledge of ASP here yet... all I can see is "switch to .NET ..cause everything else Microsoft has ever made sucks". It makes no sense.

Now remember .. I didnt bring this Topic up .. if you want to "sell" me on .net though someone has to come up with some legit reasons, as so far nothing .net does cant be done in asp .. by myself at least.

If I had issues with change, I certainly would not have lived in 4 different countries and moved from one to the next for most of my life.

[rory]

Watch out, he'll make some "real world" quip now.

I have no idea what JobBoss does, just glimsed through their features (as at 2am on a Saturday Im still working), but i have involved myself in Video Related Web Based apps for the pass 5 years or so .. and other web based apps from '96 .. so that area I do know. I see too many development companies going the browser route now and they need to learn that regardless of whatever technology they use, the browser will always be the limitation.

[penagate]

Well, fat-client and thin-client systems both have their place and you would use what is appropriate for the client's needs. Neither is better than the other, they are simply different paradigms. In .NET, you could can construct a system which is neither fat-client nor thin-client; and provide both as different ways of accessing the system (an MVC architecture) without having to use different languages.

On a general level, classic ASP is dying; partly because more and more developers are required to work with .NET systems as their clients are moving to using other .NET-based software tools; and partly because they simply prefer working in .NET, for whatever reason.

now remember there is nothing i cant do in classic ASP .. so you really have to sell me on the more expensive and time consuming upgrade. If its simply to do with salary or jobs available, count me out, as I work for myself.

Point taken.

I would say ASP.NET offers the biggest advantage when dealing with large web applications. It is easier (I find personally) to maintain them and you can use inheritance to build upon existing functionality in the .NET framework.

For small (one or two page) sites, ASP is probably easier. It is quick to just create a page, as you say.


None of it matters to me though as I prefer PHP over both.

[rory]

Well, fat-client and thin-client systems both have their place and you would use what is appropriate for the client's needs. Neither is better than the other, they are simply different paradigms. In .NET, you could can construct a system which is neither fat-client nor thin-client; and provide both as different ways of accessing the system (an MVC architecture) without having to use different languages.

On a general level, classic ASP is dying; partly because more and more developers are required to work with .NET systems as their clients are moving to using other .NET-based software tools; and partly because they simply prefer working in .NET, for whatever reason.

Point taken.

I would say ASP.NET offers the biggest advantage when dealing with large web applications. It is easier (I find personally) to maintain them and you can use inheritance to build upon existing functionality in the .NET framework.

For small (one or two page) sites, ASP is probably easier. It is quick to just create a page, as you say.

a more open opinion .. i appreciate and note it .. thanks

None of it matters to me though as I prefer PHP over both. :

that part i respect, though I kinda dont get. Id thought since you program in VB, going the VB route would be easier?

[penagate]

It would, but I don't use VB any more. JS and PHP are my main languages. C# when I am using .NET.

[RhinoBull]

Microsoft Windows Me...

That was THE WORST operating system ever in my opinion and (not it's relevant) most of tech personal I know agreed.

[RobDog888]

Lets try to stay on topic guys.

[rory]

That was THE WORST operating system ever in my opinion and (not it's relevant) most of tech personal I know agreed.

you say tomato

[gtilles]

I still love ASP, only by the fact that I've been doing it so long that I am compfortable with it, therefore I can usually whip out something quicker, but at this point having jumped in to ASP.net I wouldn't start any new projects with classic asp. I also have found quite a few hosting companies out there that claim to run .net only to have a simple "HellowWorld.aspx" page crash.
I think it's days are numbered but it is a great entry level place to start to learn the basics.
I imagine it will fall into the same category as COBOL, minimal new developement and maintenance coding only.

[mendhak]

I also have found quite a few hosting companies out there that claim to run .net only to have a simple "HellowWorld.aspx" page crash.

That's user incompetence, not a .NET problem.

[litlewiki]

That was THE WORST operating system ever in my opinion and (not it's relevant) most of tech personal I know agreed.

It was ranked the 4th worst tech product ever released.

[RhinoBull]

It was ranked the 4th worst tech product ever released.

I'm not surprised but where did you get that info from?

[litlewiki]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125772/article.html

The list is more or less accurate.

[mendhak]

It gladdens me to see RealPlayer on that list.

It disheartens me to see some websites and people still using it.

[rory]

It was ranked the 4th worst tech product ever released.

.Net framework should be there as #1

[gtilles]

That's user incompetence, not a .NET problem.

Never said it was a .net problem, but when a client wants to do a asp.net site
and I run my simple helloworld.aspx and it crashes, I have really 2 choices. Tell the client to change hosting companies and or do it in classic asp.
I ran a thread here awhile ago about my asp.net test page that ran on 8 other servers except this one. They basically said .net ran fine on their system and it was a problem with my code.

One button and a response.write "hello" in the event click and it works on 8 other servers, yes it must be my code.
So yes user incompetance to to not be able to set up a server correctly would be a reason to develop in asp 3.0

[litlewiki]

@rory,I think you should switch platforms to Linux.It has better backward compatibility support.

AFA .NET is concerned ,if you really hate it so much ,you can write your own framework(seriously ).You can start from here .

[RhinoBull]

It gladdens me to see RealPlayer on that list.
It disheartens me to see some websites and people still using it.

I feel the same way about the AOL.

[RhinoBull]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,125772/article.html

The list is more or less accurate.

Thanks for the link.

[rory]

@rory,I think you should switch platforms to Linux.It has better backward compatibility support.

AFA .NET is concerned ,if you really hate it so much ,you can write your own framework(seriously ).You can start from here .

I do plan a move to linux one day, but not 100% away from Windows or VB ..
I just dont plan to use .net anytime soon, didnt say never though. in fact ill be doing some Nulceus stuff when i get a chance, even better than linux (for my industry)

Though the topic here was ASP, and noone has yet provided any viable reason for me to switch to ASP.net.

[RhinoBull]

Your stubborness is almost unrealistic and beyond being at least reasonable, rory...

Anyway,

What's New in ASP.NET
Classic ASP versus ASP.NET
Differences between ASP and ASP .NET

or for more comprehensive info get yourself one of these.

Best regards.

[rory]

Stubbornness? Like i said .. show me something that I cant do in classic ASP .. not something you cant do .. and no books or links to reading .. please explain why I should switch ..? Because you say so, or because MS says so?? Or actually some valid reason other than i may want to entertain 1000 websites for some strange reason.

[tommygrayson]

Stubbornness? Like i said .. show me something that I cant do in classic ASP .. not something you cant do .. and no books or links to reading .. please explain why I should switch ..? Because you say so, or because MS says so?? Or actually some valid reason other than i may want to entertain 1000 websites for some strange reason.

In .NET you can omit the word Set when instantiating an object.

Instead of:

Set ExcelApp = New Excel.Application

you could:

ExcelApp = New Excel.Application

Hope this helps. It saves you 3 letters worth of typing.

[RhinoBull]

... please explain why I should switch ?..

Read the articles if you are really interested. And it's not "because MS says so" but rather because entire industry suggests to do so.

[penagate]

In .NET you can omit the word Set when instantiating an object.

That is truly the single most convincing reason to switch to .NET that I have ever seen.

I am sure your profound and heartfelt reasoning will convince legions of class ASP holdouts to shun such abominable words as 'Set' and make the move to this so obviously vastly superior platform.

[tommygrayson]

That is truly the single most convincing reason to switch to .NET that I have ever seen.

I am sure your profound and heartfelt reasoning will convince legions of class ASP holdouts to shun such abominable words as 'Set' and make the move to this so obviously vastly superior platform.

Well I can't enumerate and post all the good changes in .NET.

[RhinoBull]

I think one of the most important (if not significant) is the following:

ASP.NET pages are compiled into assemblies just like the other components within .NET, providing both performance and security benefits.
...
ASP.NET supports using any .NET language within it. No longer are you confined to using JavaScript or VB Script on your Web pages. You can now use more structured languages. ASP.NET lets you write the executable parts of your pages in C# or full-fledged Visual Basic.

[rory]

In .NET you can omit the word Set when instantiating an object.

Instead of:

Set ExcelApp = New Excel.Application

you could:

ExcelApp = New Excel.Application

Hope this helps. It saves you 3 letters worth of typing.

LOL

actually we use:
Set objExcel = CreateObject("Excel.Application")

But we can cut it back to ...
Set e = CreateObject("Excel.Application")