[thelist] making the move from php to asp

Ken Schaefer ken at adOpenStatic.com
Sat Apr 17 01:36:41 CDT 2004

From: "Stephen Caudill" <SCaudill at municode.com>
Subject: RE: [thelist] making the move from php to asp

:: In addition, I don't personally look at "thousands of lines of
:: code" at a time - I use an IDE that saves me from that type of
:: problem.
: Someone break out the ruler, there's a measuring
: contest at hand.

Not at all. I'm not trying to engage in a measuring contest. Perhaps I
overzealously snipped. Let me try to clarify

You said you needed to scan thousands of lines of code. I suspect that most
people use IDEs (I know I do) that mean that we don't have to. So your point
about [] -vs- () in thousands of lines of code is a bit of a straw-man

:: I have no idea what you mean by "version corruption" - I
:: certainly didn't get that from the link you cited. If you knew
:: anything about ASP.NET you'd know that backwards compatibility/no
:: breaking changes is one of the top priorities of the development
:: team. There's a bit of a rant on that site - obtuse error
:: messages, and so forth - but that's another issue.
: *That Site*... is a very well respected site on software
: development. The "version corruption as the runtime is
: updated" I referred to is clearly cited here:
:in paragraph four.  As I referenced before.  Really, now do your
: coworkers have to say everything twice, or is it just me?

I am quite familiar with Joel's site. He has some (usually opinionated)
things to say, which aren't always accurate.

Now, with reference to your citation: paragraph 4 doesn't have the phrase
"version corruption" in it anywhere. Which is probably why I was wondering
what you were talking about.

Now, dealing with the multiple version issue raised in para 4: the .Net
Framework is specifically designed to allow for side-by-side installation.
Installing newer versions of the .Net Framework does not disturb previous
versions. The application you deploy can specify which versions of the
runtime it supports -or- requires through a simple XML file. You set the
<requiredRuntime> and/or <supportedRuntime> attributes. Easy.

: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:::: Maybe because we have theological differences with the
:::: language?
::: BZZT - ASP.NET isn't a "language". There are over 25 CLS
::: compliant languages you can choose from for developing ASP.Net
::: applications.
: ASP.NET was used as an umbrella term for all languages
: operating under its Common Language Runtime.  Would your prefer
: I list each CLS compliant language everytime I refer to it?
: How could you have a theological diference with
: *every* language that you could use? You don't like VB, and you
: seem to express a preference for C style languages, so what's
: your beef with Managed C++? Or JScript.Net? (or if you prefer
: more esoteric languages: COBOL.NET or Eiffel.NET)?
: What language is it that you use that has such significant
: differences to one of the .Net ones?

This thread started about ASP, not .NET, in which I voiced my
personal gripes with VBScript.

However, if you're interested, and haven't yet gleaned it, my
idealistic differences with .NET stem from my distate for
"Harry Potter Programmers" that use wizards and winforms rather
than writing the code themselves. I believe that automation of
programming makes sloppy code and greatly hinders accessibility.
In fact I've seen it in practice.

Ah, but you said you have theological differences with the language.  When I
pointed out there is no single language you said meant "all languages".

When I pointed out that almost all popular languages (or at least their
syntax) are supported you say you have a problem with "wizards and

But no *language* has any wizards. And Winforms are part of the Framework
BCL. And just about any Windows development requires that you use the
classes and APIs that Windows provides. You don't write your own Window

So what exactly is the problem you have with ASP.Net? You can write it by
hand using any IDE - no wizards required.

I understand a concern with using wizards to generate code, but no one
requires you to use a wizard. All the stuff can be written by hand using
Notepad, and compiled using command line compilers. So Wizards aren't
intrinsic to either ASP.NET *nor* any of the languages ASP.NET can be
written in. So WRT to your original quote:

"Maybe because we have theological differences with the language?...Would
your prefer I list each CLS compliant language everytime I refer to it?"

Which *language*, and what's you beef with that language? And why aren't any
of the other available languages suitable for you?

:: That said, an event-based programming ideology has nothing to do
:: with Visual Studio.Net - it is not the IDE that pushes you
:: towards using postbacks. So I don't understand why you are
:: linking "forms based design" with Visual Studio.Net.
: Because the IDE, which I have installed, but do not use,
: makes it very conducive to Visual Programming.  See
: above objections.

What does "visual programming" have to do with an "event based programming"
environment? What does visual programming have to do with "forms based
design"?!? You complained initially about forms-based design. Whilst I can
understand your problems with relying on wizards to write code, I don't
understand what these wizards have to do with your previous complaints about
"forms based design", and so forth.

: Furthermore I don't really understand what you mean by
: "forms-based design". You have your contents, and you stick form
: tags around it. I don't see what's so difficult about that.

I don't follow.

You stated that maybe "... we don't like the Forms-Based design that the IDE
makes so darn condusive?"

a) Forms-based design has nothing to do with the IDE - it's an intrinsic
part of the way ASP.NET works. You'd need to use server-side forms no matter
whether you used Visual Studio.Net or not

b) I don't understand what's so difficult about sticking a serverside form
tag around your entire set of contents on a page.

: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::: Could I suggest that you get a clue before you post something
::: like this in a place where you'd be seriously ridiculed?
: :"Here there be trolls"
:: And here, Ken, is where you simply become small and
:: offensive. Can I suggest you keep a civil tongue in your head?
: I beg your pardon? ... technical inaccuracies,

: Again, where, when, which?

a) Version Corruption (not mentioned in the article cited). In any case,
.Net Framework is designed to run side-by-side with other versions of the
b) "Forms based design that the IDE makes so darn conducive" (forms based
design has nothing to do with IDE)
c) "because we have theological differences with the language?" ASP.Net does
not have "a language"

: Fine - stick to the things you know something about, and stop
: criticising that which you, manifestly, don't know much about.

Again, I say that YOU cannot make a blanket statement such as:

: "I don't understand why anyone would start a new project now utilising
: Classic ASP"

And not think it's bait.  It's flat-out, open handed criticism to anyone
who doesn't see things your way.

I don't see it that way - I'm sorry that you do. I was expressing *my
opinion*, which I believe I'm perfectly entitled to do. I certainly didn't
mean to imply that anyone else who doesn't agree with me is an idiot or
anything. If so, I would have said: "I think anyone who doesn't use ASP.NET
is an idiot"

ASP.NET gives you everything that ASP does, and a whole lot more. I don't
think there's anything that you can do with ASP that ASP.NET doesn't.
Furthermore ASP.NET gives you a huge choice of languages, a proper OO
environment, and better performance. So, I can't see any compelling reason
why you'd stick to Classic ASP except for maintaing existing systems.

If anyone can give me reasons why ASP is a better choice than ASP.Net, I'm
all ears.

The reasons you listed for sticking with ASP where:

Reason 1
sc> "Perhaps because we don't want to force a honking
sc> huge runtime download on our end users?"
which is incorrect

Reason 2
sc> "Maybe because .NET has only just reached a
sc> modicum of maturity?"
Compared to ASP, it is already way ahead in the performance and scalability

Reason 3
sc> "Maybe because we have theological differences with the language?"
Well, ASP.NET doesn't have a language, and if you have problems with all the
ASP.NET languages, then you'd have the same problems with the ASP languages,
so that doesn't give me any reason to stick with ASP.

Reason 4
sc> "Maybe because we don't like the Forms-Based design that the IDE makes
so darn condusive?"
The IDE has nothing to do with forms-based design.

So, I don't see any reasons in the conversation so far why ASP would be a
better choice for developing a new application compared to ASP.NET


More information about the thelist mailing list