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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I realize that VB.NET and ASP.NET are the successors of their seemingly obsolete classic counterparts, but I have noticed that some job descriptions still list VB6 and classic ASP as requirements. This may be because they want people who can convert code from classic to .NET, but I'm not really sure. Would classic VB and ASP be helpful in maintaining a long-term career, or should I just skip them entirely and learn .NET? Are the differences between the old and new enough to even make a difference as to which I learn first? If it helps, I'll be looking to start an internship in about a year and a half, but I'm not going to be looking for an actual job for another year or two after that.
As someone who has worked with both, and with people who started with both, I'd recommend learning .Net first.
Why?
If you learn VB6 or classic ASP, you'll get used to the procedural non-object-oriented way of development. This is not a good thing, particularly if you want to move into different (newer) languages later in your career. I've worked with many people who started in procedural languages and really struggle to think in an object-oriented way. It becomes frustrating for all involved.
It's much easier to go from a .Net language to Java or C++ or even RoR or really anything that's becoming more popular.
If you're a .Net developer, you can generally write VB6 or classic ASP code. You lose a bit of what you're used to, but it's not difficult.
If you learn VB6 and classic ASP you'll probably always be able to find work. Will it be work that interests you? Maybe, maybe not. If you get into .Net though, it's an easier transition to new jobs and interesting problems and even new languages if you're so inclined. Microsoft isn't going to let .Net go, but VB6 and ASP.Net will slowly lose their support and community.
If a job requires VB6 and classic ASP I'd run. Unless you're about to retire, you should stay less than 10 years back in development and learn new technologies.
Learn .NET, preferably C#.NET (easy if you know Javascript). VB and classic ASP will be easy to figure out after that.
The 2 are greatly different. Unless you are forced to use classic ASP, you should go for ASP .Net. If you are going the .Net route, it would probably be worthwhile to go with C# as the base language as well.
Learn .NET. They're migrating to it for a reason: it's the "latest and greatest" and has more advantages than its predecessors. Think of it this way: 10 years from now when we're all migrating .NET to XYZ (hypothetically speaking) the VB6/ASP knowledge won't be helpful.
Why are you willing to pigeon-hole yourself into that segment of the market to begin with? I've done a few migrations and they're not the most exciting projects. If you do end up getting such a job, you can pick up what you need to understand what the old code did and use the appropriate equivalent in .NET.
The concepts do differ and with the rate at which new technologies are being released lately it is a step backward to ignore the new and pursue the old.
I'm going to go on a different route and say Learn VB6 and ASP Classic first and then learn ASP.NET. Learning ASP Classic first will teach you all about HTTP, HTML, and session management. You will discover what spaghetti code looks like, and you will learn how hard it is to display tabular data. With paging. Learning ASP Classic first will make easier for you to relate to PHP.
After that, learn ASP.NET and you will appreciate all the good thing it offers. I'd say that it would probably takes 1 month of small project to get yourself comfortable with ASP Classic, and another one or maybe two month to get a good grip on ASP.NET fundamentals.
Whether you should learn VB6 or VB.NET depends on your goal. VB6 is easier to learn so if you want to learn any programming language, it will be easier to learn VB 6. Many people also work for companies that have a large embedded base of VB 5 and VB 6 code, and they need people to support that code indefinitely. If you are learning to program so you can help support this code, you need to learn VB 6.
Many of the concepts in VB .NET are different from VB 6, however. VB .NET is more object-oriented and follows a model closer to the one used by C++ and C# (no coincidence). Learning VB 6 first won't help you too much with those concepts and you may be better off learning them first so you are a "native" object-oriented programmer. If you later plan to learn other languages such as C++ or C#, you may want to start with VB .NET.
It all depends on your programming preference. I can do almost anything that .NET does with classic ASP. I prefer classic ASP because I do not like large libraries such as .NET. I find it harder to learn a library than writing my own libraries. I see posts saying that ASP.NET separates code from html but you can do this with classic ASP too using a template class. If you are an old school programmer like me chances are that you will like classic ASP better than again I prefer C over C++ because I like simplicity. Most programmers would prefer a new technology that comes with bells and whistles over the old.
Related
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I know the differences between ASP and ASP.NET generally, as I am new to both, so I don't understand all of them, but I get the fact that ASP.NET is built on top of Microsofts .NET framework, and is the next generation of ASP, but it's built from the ground up.
W3Schools and another question here on SO provided great help explaining the difference!
I was wondering if it is worth it to fully learn Classic-ASP before diving into ASP.NET.
Why do people still use Classic-ASP? I've heard about the benefits which ASP.NET provides, and it seems like it would be worth it to switch.
Do people still use Classic-ASP because of server issues, or just because they prefer to work in it for some reason?
I would like some guidance on which I should start learning first, and why if anyone has any good suggestions?
UPDATE:
Thanks for the very helpful posts everyone! They gave me a great indicator of what is important, and why!
Thanks!!
There's little or no point learning classic asp as a precursor to asp.net as whilst similar in some respects(the Server, Request, Response objects and their associated methods, etc), they're different enough that one doesn't serve as a gentle introduction to the other.
If you've no need to know classic asp, definately go with asp.net as it's "the way of the future", be it in its MVC or WebForms guise. The only reason I can think of, now, to learn classic asp would be to support a legacy application. I'd be very surprised if there's any new "greenfield" development being carried out in classic asp on any great scale. There's also a great question (that I provided an answer to) that will give you some info on the differences between asp.net WebForms and MVC that's well worth a read.
When it comes to deciding "which language" out of the choice of C# and VB.net, pick whichever you find most comprehensible, at least initially. You'd be advised to at least consider C# as examples, samples, tutorials and suchlike are much more readily available in it. One look at the C# tag vs. the vb.net tag (105,977 questions against 10,815) here on stackoverflow makes it quite clear which has the broader uptake.
ASP.Net and Classic ASP really have nothing to do with each other. Yes, they are both technologies for building websites, but the relationship stops there. Incidentally, Classic ASP is more comparable to PHP than any .Net language.
Some people still have classic asp sites, but there aren't enough left to justify spending the time learning it... Unless you are already working on one. The main reasons any of those sites are still around is they still work (old bits don't exactly grow moss) and the cost to redo everything is high enough to not be justifiable.
Just learn C# and asp.net. Don't do VB.Net as it has a much smaller following.
I would so no, as classic asp is just going to teach you bad habits.
Unless you have to work on an existing projects that already uses (classic) ASP I don't think it is worth the effort to learn. You could save yourself a lot of headache by stearing clear of that rather dated technology.
Even though the templating engines have similarities you will have to code your (classic) ASP pages in VBScript or JScript. In ASP.NET you will be using C# or VB.NET. The .NET platform is much richer than the COM based scripting platform.
Don't bother learning classic ASP unless you know for sure that you'll be working with it. Personally, I wish I could forget it. Stick with ASP.NET. Microsoft won't be going back to classic anytime soon.
Only if it is a walk down memory lane that you seek, or if you are an unfortunate soul having to maintain ASP Classic web sites.
ASP.NET nicely balances dev productivity, ease of maintenance, separation of concerns, and performance issues which were present in ASP classic.
At the same time, you might look at the earliest CGI generators on Windows - anyone remembering sprintf-ing HTML from C++. Ouch.
http://www.west-wind.com/Weblog/posts/1143.aspx
Pretty much definitively not, no.
The last version of ASP was released nearly 10 years ago with a verison of IIS no longer being supported. All the various clones of ASP have also long since died, and basically the only reason it continues to exist is legacy support.
You do not want to base your future career plans on supporting dwindling and archaic code bases.
Platform itself isn't worth learning for new work--its ancient these days. It could be of some interest in a "understanding where we came from" and "understanding why all these old farts you work with have wierd self-defensive habits."
There is one good thing you can learn with it--how to handle classic HTTP request/response in the nude. ASP.NET MVC brings this back a little bit, but there is still quite a bit of abstraction and black magic surrounding it. Except when said magic fails and the abstractions start leaking and you need to understand the underlying transport . . .
Like everyone else said, the short answer is: "no", you don't need to learn classic ASP. The long answer is: even the most complicated classic ASP site should be rewritten in a newer technology, whether from Microsoft or someone else. Time would be better spent analyzing the old application to get a list of requirements for a new application and learning how to make it work with the newer technology. The fact that a company is still using a site that is 10+ years old and is hiring someone to support it instead of replace it should be a red flag for every developer.
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.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
A friend of mine's company is considering using either Java or ASP.NET for web development. Currently they do all development in Delphi. As they have no experience in .NET they have asked me to come down and give a 1 hour overview of .NET (mainly ASP.NET). What topics should I cover?
I was hired by a Delphi product company as a senior .NET developer with the goal of moving their applications from Delphi client server/desktop apps to web based ASP.NET.
I no longer work there but remain friends with an experienced Delphi programmer who is still there.
The biggest concern you have is ensuring that these Delphi programmers start to get their heads around the fundamental shift from desktop client server apps (very common using Delphi) to web based stateless, cross browser UI ASP.NET.
My friend from the previous company has said that the company is still struggling along with minimal .NET progress after 2 years. Technologies such as XML, Javascript, AJax and even fundamentals such as the .NET CLR and assemblies are still a bit of a mystery to the team.
In summary, if I was you I would be focusing entirely on bigger concepts such as the stateless nature of the web and how ASP.NET can solve it, and the benefits and drawbacks of thin client software (ie ease of deployment, browser incompatibilies, less rich user interfaces etc.)
Other than the other suggestions you are no doubt going to get, I'd explain to them that there is a Delphi for .NET which would ease the pain of change a little. So basically they are using Delphi as the language but the underpinnings of .NET.
You might want to talk to your regional developer evangelist. I'm sure they have a stack of bullet points for instances just like this.
You can find your local evangelist(s) at: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/bb905078.aspx
There is so much to cover!
ASP.Net is better for Web Development though, It is designed for it. Take into account the following features:
Membership Provider
ASP.Net controls
The Whole Page and Code-Behind
system and don't forget ASP.Net MVC
ASP.Net Ajax and support for jQuery
ASP.Net peforms well generally, not
sure about Java though
Use .Net Librarys and languages, C#
or VB.Net and so on.
Many Many more
I would cover those, the way ASP.Net is designed as a much more complete package for web development than Java is. I also think the connection between pages and code is better in ASP.Net than using PHP/Java or how ever they would do it.
Can also switch to Winforms or other MS technologies relatively easily.
If they do want to explore C# the transition is pretty easy. Just remind them that Anders Hejlsberg was the Chief Architect of Delphi and C#.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg
I was a VB.net guy, but I took a one year Delphi gig a few years back. When I came back to .Net I was using C# and the transition was very easy.
Not sure if you're planning to give more of an architectural view or a more of hands-on experience (say, build a demo Hello World ASP.NET site), but anyway, here are some topics that might get them interested:
.NET covers many languages (C#, VB.NET, IronPython, IronRuby, Delphi.NET), even on the same solution; that means the developers can reuse some of their previous knowledge;
To support the item above, an overview of the CLR, IL etc might be useful, maybe comparing it a bit with how Java works
Visual Studio.NET is a great IDE, and there are lots of tools for it that support the latest best practices (TDD, IoC etc), including OSS
Could be also nice to mention Mono (maybe show them the same app running on Windows, MAc and Linux?) and ASP.NET MVC, in case your teammates have some knowledge of what MVC, RoR are about
I will think some more... :)
First off I'd give them a tour of creating a simple web app using Visual Studio and whatever the equivalent would be in Java. Seeing it done speaks a lot more than just giving the theory.
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 7 years ago.
Improve this question
My colleague here argues that new programmers must learn ASP first, before they learn ASP.Net.
I seem to agree with him as most new programmers who start with ASP.Net do not understand web get, post and state management :(
Which is best to learn web programming Classic ASP or ASP.Net?
I'd pick ASP.NET MVC over classic ASP. The problem with classic ASP is the support level for it. With MVC, you learn both about web get/post and state management, while at the same time getting the advantage of using your favorite OO language.
I would say don't learn classic ASP and then ASP.NET. Classic ASP is dead. Or should be.
Why not learn ASP.NET (MVC and WebForms) while also dabbling in PHP. Looking at PHP would help a developer get a sense of what its like working at a lower abstraction level.
I'd say most new web developers would be better off initially learning about HTTP specifically without muddying things with either classic ASP or ASP.NET.
Once they have the fundamentals, then I'd suggest moving straight to ASP.NET and a compiled/object oriented coding language.
While classic ASP is more compact and focused (smaller group of objects to grasp), most code written using it is unfortunately in VB-Script.
Some of the most atrocious code I've ever seen was classic ASP web sites in VB-script. While it is probably possible to write maintainable and clear code in VB-Script, the language itself seems to almost encourage the complete opposite.
Also, it sounds like ASP.NET MVC would be a better choice for your environment as it "hides" less about HTTP from the developer. For certain types of application it is a better choice then ASP.NET Web Forms.
In summary: skip the classic ASP and avoid all of the bad habits and problems that it can introduce.
It wouldn't hurt to start with Classic ASP, but I don't think it would be worth it since with a little effort you can understand what Webforms is abstracting away from you. If you want the best of both worlds, start with ASP.NET MVC.
It's the equivalent argument of saying something like:
"You must learn pascal before you learn C++!"
You're comparing 2 different languages & platforms.
I agree with others here that learning the HTTP request/response model is the key. I have also noticed that many .NET developers don't understand the HTTP model. I learned it using ASP, but .NET WebForms makes it easy for developers to not need to know it. So I agree that ASP.NET MVC would a great way to do both .NET and learn the HTTP model.
There is very little value in starting out with ASP. If you were an ASP programmer back in the day then you can appreciate some of the concepts that have carried on into ASP.NET. The fact that IIS 7 and newer versions of Visual Studio are not really that ASP friendly means that learning it as a new programmer is really more hassle than its worth. Start with what's current is what I say because its what everyone's doing.
Also, be solution oriented - language should be secondary. At the end of the day you need to deliver something that works which makes the customer happy.
Both languages have their individual advantages.Though, I agree with reply by 'Haacked' and 'John Sheehan' both. Every one will have their individual opinions. So better start learning in which you are interested.
I think you need to be thinking far further than state management and instead be thinking of the other implications of imposing learning classic asp first.
Rather than learning classic ASP, instead ensure your developers have "state management" as part of their training process. All good training material will include a state management section.
You may run the risk of thinking in the classic ASP paradigm and attempting to apply a defunt design pattern to ASP.net. Instead of making best use of ASP.net's platform and technology.
Having said that I have been developing in ASP.net for a number of years. I am currently maintaining enterprise grade classic ASP systems. Having the knowledge of how the frameworks behind these systems were developed pre-ASP.net is very valuable and HAS improved my ASP.net.
Learning an alternative language is always valuable: Recently I developed an iPhone app in objective-C, it has given me a better understanding of the MVC pattern (the defualt paradigm in XCode) - so will improve my ASP.net in the long run.
Although looking at enterprise systems will be valuable, I do not think just dabbling in classic ASP (i.e. small one-off pages) for the purpose of state management etc is worthwhile and may have detrimental effects. Instead invest time in learning ASP.net "well" (i.e. include state management).
n.b. I have found it tricky not to turn this into a classic ASP / ASP.net debate. Instead tried to concentrate on the learning.
You don't really learn ASP.NET, you'll learn a language such as C# or VB.NET. But yes .NET > !.NET
Why you should learn classic ASP at all? It is dead; no new work is done in it.
If you want to learn a programming model that works the way that the web works (Which Asp.net webforms does not, it is a leaky imitation of windows forms), there are modern models like ASP.Net MVC.
Learn the fundamentals first by writing static pages and understand the basic HTTP request/response model.
Then, move on to using server side technology. I'd recommend with Asp.Net Mvc if your head is not already filled with Asp.Net webforms model, however understand the tradeoff. Most likely you will have to deal with webforms sooner or later as majority .Net brownfield webapps are using that platform.
I would recommend just going with ASP.Net. ASP is so old a technology that they will have to learn so many work arounds to things that are common place.
I would also go with straight ASP.Net over MVC as the jury is still out (for me anyway) on how valuable MVC really is. It takes a lot of control away from the developer.
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...