I'm a little confused about new Microsoft products.
I'm a classic webform Asp.Net developer. I know exists also Asp.Net MVC with a different approach based on Mvc pattern.
Now, i know exists also WebMatrix that uses new Razor "notation".
Can someone explain me what are the main difference between that "technology" ? When use WebMatrix, when WebForm ?
Thanks!
Webmatrix is a platform that integrates a variety of recently released technologies such as IIS Express, Asp.Net Webforms, Razor, SQL Express etc. I guess from what I have been reading it's a way that eases the barrier to entry, for non-MS developers, into the MS world. In addition you can also use code your site in PHP and use a variety of open source tools for developing web sites. To directly answer your question, in you planning on creating a complex web application, WebMatrix may not be the solution you're looking for.
As a reference, I suggest reading through Scott Gu's Introduction to Webmatrix
WebMatrix will be able to take
advantage of these technologies to
facilitate a simplified web
development workload that is useful
beyond professional development
scenarios – and which enables even
more developers to be able to learn
and take advantage of ASP.NET for a
wider variety of scenarios on the web.
If you are a professional developer
who has spent years with .NET you will
likely look at the below steps and
think – this scenario is so basic -
you need to understand so much more
than just this to build a “real”
application. What about encapsulated
business logic, data access layers,
ORMs, etc? Well, if you are building
a critical business application that
you want to be maintainable for years
then you do need to understand and
think about these scenarios.
Imagine, though, that you are trying
to teach a friend or one of your
children how to build their first
simple application – and they are new
to programming. Variables,
if-statements, loops, and plain old
HTML are still concepts they are
likely grappling with. Classes and
objects are concepts they haven’t even
heard of yet. Helping them get a
scenario like below up and running
quickly (without requiring them to
master lots of new concepts and steps)
will make it much more likely that
they’ll be successful – and hopefully
cause them to want to continue to
learn more.
One of the things we are trying to-do
with WebMatrix is reach an audience
who might eventually be able to be
advanced VS/.NET developers – but who
find the first learning step today too
daunting, and who struggle to get
started.
If someone is still interested: a pretty good lessons here http://habrahabr.ru/company/microsoft/blog/136004/ . This link is for those, who understand russian.
Shortly speaking WebMatrix allows you to conveniently mix up C# server code and html (this mixing is provided by simple Razor sytax). Also in WbeMatrix 2.0(beta version now) is provided full IntelliSense for html/css/c# code.
I have been working with C# for past four years at the enterprise level. Now, I have taken a decision of moving to Web side of the things. Since I am well versed with C# and WCF I naturally zeroed in on ASP.NET as I need not learn a new Programming language. Learning just the Web Framework will suffice.
I have read a lot regarding MVC, so starting out with MVC 2.
My Question is Will I face any roadblocks if I learn MVC without learning Web Forms? Keeping in mind that this is my first foray into Web Development?
Looking forward to some good suggestions.
I was in your exact same position. The only problems you may have is wrapping your head around postbacks and what tha means. Having said that, MVC2 will teach you how to write better code instead of the typical spaghetti that comes asociated with webforms.
If you're new to MVC2 I'd recommend buying Wrox Professional ASP.NET MVC2 from writer Scott Hanselman.
Learning web development these days is hard as you need to be an expert on so many different things!
You need to learn HTML/CSS/JavaScript(ie, JQuery)/Json regardless of the server side framework you are using if you are creating “rich” web applications.
I would say starting with ASP.NET MVC is not a bad option before moving onto ASP.NET Web Forms. You are likely to hit both going forward, but as ASP.NET MVC does not hide what’s going on so much, I think it may be a better start.
However if you just wish to create simple forms on the web, it is hard to beat ASP.NET Web Forms, but as soon as you wish to do something more advanced, the Web Forms complex page cycle will give you pain.
If you're looking to apply your web skills to enterprise environments, you'd probably find a lot of environments still leveraging Web Forms. Outside of that, I can't imagine it would really hurt you that much.
The bigger thing about web development is getting familiar with HTML/CSS/JavaScript(ie, JQuery). The skills learned there are applicable to either environment. You'd probably be able so switch back end frameworks rather painlessly as long as you're used to c# and all the web stuff previously mentioned.
I think it depends on what type of applications you are going to be developing. I believe web forms would be easier for you to learn with the background you already have in WCF. But it might not be worth it if the applications you are developing are better suited for MVC rather than web forms.
My recommendation would be to determine what type of applications you are going to be developing and then look at the strengths and weakness's of each and then determine which one you are going to focus on.
You most probably won't. There are some concepts that belong to the web-application environment (session, caching, etc) that are common but you'd have to learn about them anyway. They are two separate frameworks so nothing very specific about one of them could help you with the other.
You will undoubtedly run into issues when knowing a "new" way of doing things without having been brought up in the "old" way of doing things. It's unavoidable, really. I'd suggest learning the basics of WebForms code if possible, if for no other reason than to be able to trudge through it when necessary. Of course, if you find yourself in the position of having to support a WebForms application, you'll learn by doing just like anything else.
This question reminds me of my early days in .NET (which were the very early days of .NET in general) and trying to find assistance with various issues. I was an entry level developer, hitting up forums and such with questions. Everywhere I went, people weren't really adopting .NET just yet. They were all old Windows platform developers, whereas .NET was my first Windows development (I was all UNIX/Linux in school). Invariably, nearly every question I asked was answered with something suggesting that I "just use COM." Of course, I wasn't familiar with this. It was "the old way" and I was using "the new way."
It was difficult to work past that, and you'll likely face the same issue here. Basically, when people have made a career out of doing something the one single way they know how, they tend to expect everyone else to know it as well and will cling tightly to it as their bread and butter. You can be better than that, but it'll require patience :)
I assume that your development experience included Windows Forms. In terms of the transition from Windows Forms to ASP.NET WebForms, there's no doubt that would be an easier transition. Whether that would be the best transition is another question. And I believe the answer is without a doubt, no.
MVC allows you to gain an understanding of the way the Web works. Understanding GET and POST, Requests and Responses, not to mention HTML, CSS, JavaScript, et al.
I would not hesitate to recommend MVC.
I don't understand why you don't want to learn Web Forms. Learning Web Forms is just like learning abc's. You'll learn it as you go along with MVC. My suggestion is, Just go with the flow in your learning of MVC and you'll be surprise that you're already learning Web Forms.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I need to learn and adpot the MVC methodology for building web apps. Which is the better way to go given that I have experience with ASP .NET Webforms - ASP .NET MVC or Ruby on Rails?
I've heard people going gaga over RoR and its simplicity and its features such as scaffolding, ActiveRecord, convention over configuration etc.
However, I fail to see what is so great about these. Most of them sound basic (the kind you'll not really want to use in production code - scaffolding for example) - and most of them sound like they are there in ASP .NET MVC in some form or the other.
Why should I consider learning RoR over ASP .NET MVC?
Are there benefits I do not know about or am unable to perceive?
I suggest you learn both!
I'm a professional ASP.Net developer by day, and a hobbyist RoR developer by night. Learning RoR will in fact make you a better .Net developer, and it's fun!
Also consider that one day you may in fact be able to write an ASP.NET MVC app in IronRuby instead of fussy old c# :)
There are many reasons I would recommend learning RoR over MVC
It's a much more mature stack. It's been around since 2005.
You get to learn a new programming language. "They" say you should learn a new programming language every year.
There is a very rich set of extensions to the base stack. Eg. HAML, Authentication gems, profiling and the list goes on and on.
You get to use database migrations out of the box. Something that is a bit of a breakthrough in database configuration management.
Dynamic languages give you a massive amount of flexibility.
That said: ASP.Net MVC is an awesome framework from Microsoft. I am not advocating dumping your stack and moving to the dark side. I just think it helps to have a broad understanding when it comes to technology.
If you're familiar with the Microsoft stack (Windows, IIS, SQL, ASP.NET) but not so familiar with the Linux stack (Apache, MySql, etc), then going with ASP.NET MVC over Ruby on Rails will cost you a lot less in the long run, in time spent on learning infrastructure.
I suggest you take a look at the job market in your area, and choose what will increase your opportunities. Ruby on Rails is a great framework, but if nobody in your area cares or uses it, then it won't do you any good to learn it (speaking from a career perspective - there are lots of reasons it would benefit you from a learning perspective). I was faced with this dilemma recently and gave it a lot of thought; since my area is pretty much 99% .Net based and that's what companies want, I decided to focus on MVC and becoming an "expert" in ASP.NET instead of learning RoR, since there's no demand for RoR. I actually wasted two months learning RoR before I realized that it would help me personally, but not professionally.
That said, if you're planning on striking out on your own then choose whichever one you feel more comfortable with. If you already know Asp.Net though, I'd recommend taking a look at the MVC framework first since it leverages what you already know, but I heartily suggest looking at picking up Ruby, if not the Rails framework, since it's a very good scripting language for many tasks.
I would recommend learning one at a time. The biggest part of of learning a new language or method of programming is learning the best practices and changing how you approach a programming problem. Not just the syntax. Jumping into two at once will leave you with bad habits in both.
Because you already know ASP.NET I think learning ASP.NET MVC would be the logical next step. Get a solid understanding of MVC concepts and THEN try a project or two in Ruby on Rails. The two frameworks approach some things differently. You may find that your style and preferences fit one better than the other. But either way, now you know both. Can't hurt right?
However, I fail to see what is so
great about these. Most of them sound
basic (the kind you'll not really want
to use in production code -
scaffolding for example) - and most of
them sound like they are there in ASP
.NET MVC in some form or the other.
The ability to rapid prototype a website is part of what makes RoR so popular. When designing a website for a client there's a big difference between a non-functional mock and a functional mock.
I believe the feature gab between ASP.NET MVC and RoR will continue to get smaller. Eventually the choice will come down to a question of Windows vs LAMP.
I would spend a few weeks with RoR. It's extremely simple to get it installed and up and running so you can develop with it. Then it's just a matter of following a few tutorials until you've covered most of the basics. Then decide if you want to continue with RoR or stick with ASP.NET MVC.
if you already know c# and you were working with asp.net webforms, try asp.net mvc...and when you learn it, you can improve your skills with RoR as I am planning to...
cheers
Personally I would invest the time in learning both. I have done this and although I ended up going with MVC for my current project, the decision was because I didn't have the time to invest in learning Ruby language. The RoR framework on the other hand you can get within a few nights and get going with webpages, validation, CRUD e.t.c. in no time at all. However when you need to start adding domain logic, learning about gems you may need to understand Ruby.
Another reason is I already have a hosting setup for Microsoft, and I know c# and the .net framework and the resources I'll need already so although it's less mature and isn't as feature-rich as RoR, I deduced I could get further faster with MVC.
To make the decision yourself, weigh all the options, spend a week with MVC ( use the book MVC in Action ) and spend a week with RoR (use the book Agile Web Development with Ruby on Rails 3rd Edition ) these will get you going within no time. Then when you decide on one or the other you will have a more knowledgeable perspective.
Considering Stack Overflow is written with ASP.NET MVC I think it might be sacrilege to promote RoR over MVC.
MVC has pretty much given Microsoft lovers one more tool that they don't need to go elsewhere to get.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Having worked with Classic ASP for about 2 years now by creating a few 100 simple web forms I can't see a good reason for switching to .net; however, I'm not that versed in .net so I'm sure I could be missing a few things.
Some points that I often hear around work can be found here: http://www.packtpub.com/article/Classic-ASP (not that I share all of these thoughts, but it's a good jumping off point)
I'm very interested to hear what others have to say on this matter.
You're missing more than a few things! ASP.NET is orders of magnitudes more productive, robust, and maintainable than old-school ASP ever thought about being. Server side controls, third-party controls, master pages, forms authentication, forms validation, an OO model than encourages appropriate application partitioning, easy deployment, built-in debugging and tracing, state management.
You even have the choice of WebForms or MVC. It's not an understatement to say that you are simply out of your mind if you don't thoroughly investigate what you're missing.
If you like ASP, and want to move to ASP.NET, skip Webforms and learn MVC.
The biggest issue for me is that I create applications, not websites...The UI is a minor part of the problem, the big part is writing the business logic layer, and various enterprise communication components (Connecting to SAP using SOAP? No Problem!).
The .NET Toolkit allows me to program in a wonderful object oriented language (C#) and has a robust framework to help out.
VbScript is a godawful language to try and write a business application in.
However, if all you do is a simple little webform, then sure, use VbScript.
As far as your link, it basically boils down:
WaaWaa, I don't like Visual Studio
WaaWaa, I want to edit production code on the production server like an idiot.
WaaWaa, I don't know that deploying a single compiled DLL is all that a small site needs to deploy a asp.net app.
Basicly, its ignorance in a nutshell.
To focus on the specific question ("benefits of Classic vs .Net"), there are only two things I can think of Classic does that .Net won't:
1) Includes. They just don't work like you expect in ASP.Net. Of course, ASP.Net provides much better ways of accomplishing the same thing, but it's still a bit of a loss and can make migrating an old site to .Net a pain.
2) ASP.Net won't go above the root folder for the application. Where I'm at we have a rather complex intranet that's still mostly classic ASP, with a smattering of .Net apps here and there as things are updated or new stuff added. It would be nice to be able to keep one copy of common code up fairly high in the folder hierarchy but still have each individual app isolated to it's own VD. But then, that's what source control is for, so it's not a big deal.
For me, the biggest advantage moving from Classic ASP and ASP.Net so far is the IDE. It's so nice to be able to right click on a function call and choose "Go to Definition" rather than having to dig around to find the file where the function is actually implemented. Huge time-saver. And intellisense support and type safety when calling functions is a boon as well.
For me I'd have to say Classic ASP is quick to develop in, simple to use/pick up, not overly complicated and very capable of most things asked of it.
ASP with JScript/Javascript as the main language is really, really good fun to code with. VBScript is a waste of brain power and I think its that which gives Classic ASP its bad name. Plus its considered slow but all the articles about speed and number of users are based on 10+ year old servers. We run a site getting 60,000 users a day on two servers and the CPU barely flickers. Modern servers give you a lot more power to play with.
With the huge leaps forward in Javascript usage, designs and best practises in recent years the ASP JScript coder can get alot of goodies to make life even easier. I've ported Mootools to server-side and with that we get an load of wonderful helps, class model, excellent event model and so much more. ASP is great fun. UPDATE: Mootools now have a server-side build that you can download (http://mootools.net/download).
ASP.net is SUPER powerful but has a big ramp on the learning curve to do well, can bring your whole site down when it has one of its fits and worst for me can seem to really go around the houses to get the most simplest of things done.
I'm having alot of fun using both at the minute, using which ever one best fits the gap. I've a great little CMS Cacher and Thumbnailer build in .net which my ASP scripts use. Best of both worlds.
Performance, scalability, and a framework that provides a much better foundation for the stateless world of web applications, for a start.
Wikipedia's ASP.Net page has a section on the differences.
If you look back at your old code and say, "What was I thinking! This is rubbish, I write code much better now!" then you have developed as a programmer.
If the sites are fairly temporary (i.e. you build it quickly, it gets used for a specific purpose and amount of time and then it is effectively closed) then banging out these sites in the most comfortable way for you is perfectly acceptable.
If you have a long list of bugs, fixes and improvements that you now need (or would like) to backport to your old sites, or your "small sites" are getting bigger and more complidated and this is causing you significant grief then you need to take a step back and re-evaluate how you structure and support these sites.
I would very much agree that ASP.NET is a very much more mature and effective programming environment. However, like any tool, you need to know (or learn) the right way to use it as it's not going to automatically turn you into a "super programmer" overnight.
A way to break the ice is to agree with your boss that the next "site" you create is developed in ASP.NET. Explain to him that it will take quite a lot longer than how you currently deliver sites because you have to "get your head around" ASP.NET, but the benefits are x,y and (exercise left to the reader!)
Personally, I'm still in the transition phase (and I started using ASP.NET from v1!) as I have a fairly robust Classic ASP framework I'm developed and comfortable with. However, I have used ASP.NET strategically and have found it VERY powerful and your do end up writing must less code, as so much is built into the .net framework, as long as you can find it in documentation.
I also recommend that you DONT use VB.NET and your bite the bullet to use C#. The change of language is quite minor, but you reduce the chances of writing your sites exactly the same was as you used to. It helps break the bad habits annd gives you a chance to learn new techniques.
Good Luck!
For simple sites, I actually prefer ASP vs. ASP.NET, especially if you know HTML well. However with ASP, separating business logic from view is hard; the code you write will likely be challenging to read + maintain.
PHP is better than ASP though - and somewhat similar at the basic level. And you could always go to Rails or Django, if you're interested in self-contained web development stack (but a lot longer learning curve).
I have one word "debugging" - you never want to have to use it but you always do. In .Net if you're using Visual Studio you have a fantastic debugger when compared to trying to debug code on ASP.
Rarely does a response in this thread answer the question. Instead of taking the easy way out, I'll take a stab at it:
A few benefits that have not been mentioned (JScript-centric):
You can learn the entire language and keep it in your memory if you use it enough - I don't know anyone who claims to know the entire .NET framework; this makes coding very rapid.
Weak typing - this can let you code more rapidly when banging something out quickly, e.g., do you really care about the difference between char and string most of the time? (insert religious flame-war here)
Eval: this much-maligned keyword is actually incredibly powerful, and lets you manipulate your code at runtime in really interesting ways
Client/server language compatibility: JScript's similarity to Javascript means that you can use the same include file for server-side validation as you use for client-side.
One advantage to ASP.NET is that you have the option of coding your site exactly as you did with classic ASP, along with access to the richness of the .NET framework. You can keep existing functionality and add new ASP.NET functionality were needed. They mix well.
Unfortunately the author of the referenced article isn't very well versed in the technology behind ASP.NET as evident by his remarks (and maybe not even classic ASP). Most of his points are invalid or simply wrong.
Everyone here has made valid points.
I was a classic ASP developer until 3 yrs ago when I switched to .NET 2.0.
I couldn't go back (even though I do still have to fix a handful of classic ASP sites).
I do miss having a recordset object, data repeaters are great for displaying data quickly, but datasets, whilst offering wonderful functionality, are dame awful when it comes to performance on 'big' sites. In fairness I've been doing datasets in a roundabout way with Arrays in classic ASP. The only time I use datasets is for my e-commerce site baskets. I do miss rs.movenext, etc...
FlySwat has made one of the biggest mistakes that I see a lot of developers make.
Yes business logic, OO etc... that .NET brings is great (scalability I wouldn’t 100% agree with, but definitely more extensible), but when using ASP.NET you are still creating a WEB SITE. Forget this nonsense of using the terminology ‘application’. I have meet many great .NET developers who build n-tier, OO sites, but they have no real understanding of the uniqueness of building a web site; such as state, or the bloody annoying problem that they over rely on Javascript. Most of these developers build MS type sites which don't normally meet W3C, aren’t cross browser friendly and never gracefully degrade. And no it is not acceptable even for back office applications to be only compatible with IE.
.NET also tends to 'fatten' simple sites. .NET in many ways was a way of getting WinForm developers to start building web sites (or as they prefer, web apps.). The problem was that this brought with it a bunch of developers who had the luxuries not having to worry about state, standards, etc...
I still maintain that any .NET site can be built in classic ASP and run faster (page response times) for the end user....
...BUT though I have fond memories of classic ASP, what I can do with .NET in terms of imaging, encryption, compression, easy web service integration, proper OO, decent n-tier, extensibility, etc...is what gives .NET the advantage. Even silly things like simply adding one line of code to the web.config to tell it to write the sessionID to the querystring if the user doesn’t accept cookies (this was a pain in classic ASP) is great.
Move to .NET, you won’t regret it, but do give yourself sometime (particularly if you don’t know about OO (inheritance, abstraction, polymorphism and encapsulation). Don’t start building .NET sites in classic compatibility mode, it’s just a cheap way of doing .NET and you’ll still end up using classic ASP practises. If VBScript was your main development language, the jump is no were near as easy as MS or others would have you believe.
Most importantly for me is that I have carried across, from my classic ASP days, fundamental web site application (;-)) design and this should never change between languages.
If all you make is simple little web pages, then do whatever. Or better yet learn PHP. Most of the response you are going to get are from people who make web applications, and for that asp.net blows the pants off of classic asp in power and maintainability though.
I agree with everyone here except the one who said skip webforms and go straight to MVC. This is not helpful. Webforms is very useful for database-driven applications which do lots of table displays, etc. I have worked on some very large webforms applications and it works fine. MVC is good for more interactive "Web 2.0" type applications.
I always use Classic ASP, it works beautifully.
I tried ASP.net for a couple of years but it was too complex for most website development. My customers didn't like it either because they couldn't understand it. They also like knowing they are not locked into one developer.
ASP.NET keeps changing and requires enormous/constant learning curve to keep current. MS switched primary language to C# which made the transition just that much harder.
My productivity slowed to a crawl with .net because I was forever out looking for tutorials or examples of how to do everything.
Visual Studio is pig sloooooow.
PHP has an ugly syntax and too many different frameworks which makes it impossible to learn for developer purposes. Good only for intranet use with dedicated staff, in my opinion.
Classic ASP is locked down and works perfectly today just as it did years ago. With a few library files, code writing is easy as pie and examples are unlimited on the internet.
Written correctly, which most folks don't, vbscript is clean readable, efficient code. I leave the client side stuff for libraries like jQuery and find I am many times more productive.
Having done a "rename asp to aspx and change until it compiles" port of an application to asp.net I would say that even asp classic style programming in .NET is better than asp classic. VS of course will encourage you to fall into the pit of success and drive you towards the web forms and code-behind way of doing things, but the language is expressive enough to replicate the patterns of asp classic (namely lots of golden nuggets/inline code, cross posting pages, etc)
I think I've heard it said before that you can write COBOL in any language. That's true for classic asp.
5 Reasons You Should Take a Closer Look at ASP.NET MVC
If you use classic asp at this point (without a mandate from your CTO) then you need to see a shrink. or you are a masochist. Or as satanist, in which case, you'd like it cuz you'd be in hell! :p
On a serious note... for web applications use WebForms.
For light, quick and dirty websites, use ASP.NET MVC.
Good thing about ASP is that you can use VB.NET, C#, Eiffel, Boo or PHP for your language! For PHP check out Phalanger...
Since I'm paid to create solutions and not to write code, I just prefer ASP.NET over classic ASP. While classic ASP is still practical for very small, simple sites, there's still a lot of power behind ASP.NET when writing a bit more complex sites. Besides, even with ASP.NET you could still just use Notepad to write the .aspx files yourself, including embedded vb or c# code. Visual Studio just provides a lot of additional functionality that takes away the need to write more code yourself.
And, as I said, I don't get paid for writing code...