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.
Related
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
Our team is divided on this and I wanted to get some third-party opinions.
We are building an application and cannot decide if we want to use .Net WPF Desktop Application with a WCF server, or ASP.Net web app using jQuery. I thought I'd ask the question here, with some specs, and see what the pros/cons of using either side would be. I have my own favorite and feel I am biased.
Ideally we want to build the initial release of the software as fast as we can, then slow down and take time to build in the additional features/components we want later on. Above all we want the software to be fast. Users go through records all day long and delays in loading records or refreshing screens kills their productivity.
Application Details:
I'm estimating around 100 different screens for initial version, with plans for a lot of additional screens being added on later after the initial release.
We are looking to use two-way communication for reminder and event systems
Currently has to support around 100 users, although we've been told to allow for growth up to 500 users
We have multiple locations
Items to consider (maybe not initially in some cases but in future releases):
Room for additional components to be added after initial release (there are a lot of of these... perhaps work here than the initial application)
Keyboard navigation
Performance is a must
Production Speed to initial version
Low maintenance overhead
Future support
Softphone/Scanner integration
Our Developers:
We have 1 programmer who has been learning WPF the past few months and was the one who suggested we use WPF for this.
We have a 2nd programmer who is familiar with ASP.Net and who may help with the project in the future, although he will not be working on it much up until the initial release since his time is spent maintaining our current software.
There is me, who has worked with both and am comfortable in either
We have an outside company doing the project management, and they are an ASP.Net company.
We plan on hiring 1-2 others, however we need to know what direction we are going in first
Environment:
General users are on Windows 2003 server with Terminal Services. They connect using WYSE thin-clients over an RDP connection. Admin staff has their own PCs with XP or higher. Users are allowed to specify their own resolution although they are limited to using IE as the web browser.
Other locations connects to our network over a MPLS connection
Based on that, what would you choose and why?
I am especially interested in hearing from developers who have experience with both ASP.Net and WPf.
Reasons to choose WPF:
Much faster and easier development than ASP.NET and jQuery
Much easier to implement quick incremental background loading of data
Much easier to implement client-side caching of commonly used data (important for remote offices)
More efficient data transfer from server (can use advanced WCF features unavailable to web browser)
Keyboard navigation better, since you can easily define shortcuts, etc, and not be limited by browser
Maintenance overhead much better using MVVM pattern
Softphone integration easy
Reasons to choose ASP.NET and jQuery:
None that I can see
In your scenario I would definitely choose WPF.
First of all, I would sit down and write the business requirements and specifications. It really doesn't matter what tech you use - proper planning will affect your project timeline more than technology choice. This is especially true for an in-house custom built app.
As far as development, I would take the requirements and lay out the backend functionality. I would actually implement the backend in WCF, regardless of the client technology - that way you could use best of both worlds if needed (for example for phone integration you could write a stand-alone WPF app). ASP.NET with jQuery can easily use WCF services (JSON or XML version) together with desktop client.
As far as development of the client forms, this highly depends on developers experience and your future plans. I am not going to go into advantages/disadvantages of developing web software here - there are a ton of articles in the last 10 years about cloud/web based software (for example salesforce). I would rather concentrate on deliverables - what is your team most comfortable with today and in the future. There's a huge difference between WPF and web development, from development standpoint, and it requires completely different experience.
Why not consider a hybrid solution - Silverlight
With Silverlight you get most of the goodness and statefullness of WPF (with almost exactly the same XAML and code), plus you get the deployment characteristics of ASP.NET
Many people consider Silverlight the next step after ASP.NET/AJAX, and it would definitely deliver all of the benefits of WPF relevant to your scenario.
WPF is the way to go, without a doubt. I agree with all that #Ray Burns has said.
Because:
You will get a richer, slicker, faster application.
It will be easier to build1.
Softphone/Scanner (i.e. hardware) integration is going to require browser plugins etc. and this can be a nightmare with a browser based application.
Keyboard navigation is still better with native applications.
IME Maintenance is easier with WPF applications.
Definitely use WCF to provide the backend via The Entity Framework, see The Entity Framework In Layered Architectures. You can do have a better integration with the backend in a native application because it can be called inline - no need for callbacks or ajax. I've built components for WPF that are linked via EF to the business logic to provide aware controls for simple stuff like validation. It's stunningly good to drop a customer name field onto a form and it just works.
To add additional components you need to build it with a proper well thought out plugin architecture. This is the same in both environments. I've got some thoughts on this I jotted down in my journal entitled Designing a plugin architecture for an application
When building a WPF application you will be writing in one language (e.g. C#) + markup (XAML). When building asp.net you endup with two languages + markup, as you always have to code some Javascript.
So, based on your requirements it has be to WPF / WCF (EF). A web based application will be a lot more work, more complexity, and not be as nice.
About 12 months ago I was fortunate enough to be given a free hand to choose the technology for a new application. I spent almost a month evaluating all of the options and came to the conclusion that it had to be C#, WPF, Entity Framework. After writing the application I can confirm that it was the right choice...
1. It will still be easier even if your programmers have to learn WPF first. WPF is much better thought out, great and lovely. very lovely. It just works right.
Hi
I think The question at issue is Windows-application or Web application(WPF for win-app VS asp for web-app), Which one is better for you and your project?. In this case your platform is network and your program must work on the net. so for this usage Web-app is better but there are a lot points existing which can make decisions hard. Network platform has great challenge.(according to my personal experience)
Working with web-app by asp.net is nearly hard. you must try to handle many thing's for web-app(request time, session management, even poor UI in comparison to WPF, j-query, etc ). Remember this is not as easy as simple web site.
But win-app is good for network with this condition: "local network"(mpls is almost the same). Absolutely developing win-app is easier than web-app ("At least number of users expert in net-program developing"). for this case WPF has many good things(UI , command, etc) also has many challenging point(like multi-threading and lack of expert developer in this field ) . I'm rather with wpf than asp but decisions is yours
And chalk point to good thing Silverlight but if you want to use this you must look at prism framework : http://compositewpf.codeplex.com/
I have recently developed a project separately with asp and silverlight(prism framework). developing silver-light version is too hard and takes more time than asp.net version but at the end SL-ver have great look nothing else!
Burns pointed to good issues about wpf. also consider Artemiy's post. your environment conditions is same for both of them. WPF/ASP can work with scanner and soft-phone cuz the base of both is on C# and .net library
Finally what ever your decisions is you must hire advance developer at least develop one business-app for the network platform.
Is your app a desktop app or web app.
If Desktop wpf is best.
If web based asp.net is best.
Don't front load your development with your get it up quick scenario. That never works well and results in a sloppy deployment. Take your time, cover all the steps (Business Requirements, System Design, Program Design, Code, TEST and TEST some more, Deployment)
Some points to be made for ASP.NET:
The pool of ASP.NET developers is much larger then the pool of WPF developers.
Which means you can probably find qualified ASP.NET developers easier.
ASP.NET is probably more future proof, chances of WPF getting large changes and being hard to port to later versions is probably larger.
Also keep in mind that the focus of MS seems to be on Silverlight so there might be a consolidation down the road which makes WPF obsolete.
More mature eco system of ASP.NET makes for more out of the box solutions to use to solve problems.
With multiple locations you might be able to skip a few layers and go directly to a website?
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 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
How much of ASP.NET or C# is required for Sharepoint development? Do you need experience with things like developing N layered web applications, design patterns, test driven development, strong SQL background etc?
I hear that Sharepoint development is different from enterprise applications thats typically built with technologies like ASP.NET.
If I know my basics in .NET, C# and have some experience with ASP.NET and have good understanding of things like Page lifecycle in webforms, web parts, Master pages etc, then am I ready for Sharepoint?
Also, is Infopath very heavily used in Sharepoint development?
If you already know ASP.NET than you are ready for SharePoint development. Get familiar with its SDK and other development concepts. SharePoint Dev Wiki might also be a good start.
A must have for new developers is to learn SharePoint from end user perspective. I am using this book to train the new guys. If you do not understand these concepts it might be hard to start coding.
It really depends on what you are wanting to achive, there are more than a few ways to develop something for SharePoint each requires different skills.
for example :
SharePoint exposes a number of webservices which you can use to complete a number of tasks.
A step up from that Sharepoint has a number of DLL's you can reference directly in order to access a more granular level of detail, but is more fiddly to work with.
Neither of these require any knowledge of ASP.NET but both work with sharepoint.
If you are planning on making a WebPart then yes ASP.NET knowlege is a big plus.
If you want to work with the Sharepoint workflows then you need knowlege of WF.
There is no one fit for developing sharepoint, which quite frankly makes it hard to hire people for it.
I guess it really depends on what you mean by SharePoint development. In my humble opinion you must learn what SharePoint provides out of the box in order not to reinvent the wheel all over again.
The object model, web services and how to deploy your work using solutions is something you have to pick up very quickly in order to be a good SharePoint developer.
As I am more of a consultant type when a developer I can't say whether you should know SQL and AD but I guess it won't hurt a bit.
If you are fluent in C# it might also be a good idea to have a closer look at PowerShell as it sure looks like Microsoft will integrate PowerShell in all server products including SharePoint 2010.
I don't think it's much different, really. I've been learning both at the same time to some success. Of course, ASP.NET and SharePoint are just different things, but SharePoint is built on ASP.NET, so to the extent you understand ASP.NET, you also understand SharePoint.
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.
I'm starting a new web project and I am considering two presentation frameworks. I am thinking either about ASP.NET MVC or Silverlight. I would tend toward Silverlight since I'm quite experienced .NET developer while I have just a basic knowledge of ASP.NET controls.
It is mainly going to be an iternal
product so browsers are not an issue.
You still have not written a proper description about the nature of your application. It is difficult to assess which technology is a good fit without first knowing well enough the domain the application is being applied to, and the problems it is designed to solve.
In general, Microsoft is positioning these array of presentation technologies on the "Reach vs Rich" continuum. You have "plain old" HTML and Javascript on one end, acceptable by the most number of client machines out there, and the ultimate full-blown WPF on the other side where limited number of machines can handle. You did mention this to be an internal app, so WPF via XBAP or ClickOnce are also possible.
So the scale would align this way: (reach) ASP.NET, AJAX, Silverlight, WPF (rich).
So the question is just how rich you want/need it to be for the users until it hurts the deployment base? Frankly if all you fetch are forms and tabular data and statistics then regular ASP.NET web forms are just fine. If you want on-the-fly resizable graphs and client-side interactive with back-end WCF web services Silverlight can do that. If you want even more powerful graphical rendering than WPF via the remote deployment options is your bet.
Silverlight 3 with RIA seems to be very powerful. I hadn't programmed for 6 years after working on VB6. I about a months time, here I am developing a web applicaton that uses SL3, WCF and entity framework and I feel very comfortable.
The silverlight forum and stackoverflow ofcourse are very active and for some of the problems that i've had had, I have been able to get a solution easily.
The one thing I'm not sure of yet is performance.
Both personally and professionally, I write C# daily for Windows forms apps and Windows services. Even after years of this, I find it FAR faster to whip out a web app with PHP or Python than to do it with .NET. Maybe things have changed with Silverlight, but to me the learning curve on ASP.NET is ridiculous compared to the payback.
Edit: The above was written a year or so before I tried ASP.NET MVC. I find ASP.NET MVC wonderfully intuitive and clean.
Don't forget Silverlight is going to require a plug-in to use, and to my knowledge it has not been "natively" added to IE, let alone the rest of the browsers. So there could be tons of maintenance/support issues with that alone. PDF files are considered "ubiquitous" by now, but you still run into a user or two that doesn't have Adobe Reader on their computer and it often occurs at a bad time and then you're scurrying around to get an installer.
At a fundamental level, this is what has kept me from doing Silverlight for my web apps. I think the technology behind it is good, but considering nowadays you could get equal visibility/functionality with a nice Webforms/MVC/AJAX/jQuery combination (mix and match to your liking), I'd say stick with ASP.NET.
IMO you may be better off with ASP.Net. While you would have a slight learning curve, you'd be developing on a proven, reliable, scalable model rather than something thats in beta and will likely change before RTM.
Also, with AJAX these days its possible to get a pretty slick user experience out of ASP.Net.
I would recommend ASP.NET, no additional download is needed.
I used Silverlight but a lot of companies are not allowing users to install anything also home users are not happy to install browser plugins, Silverlight is not so known as Flash player.
For beginners and advanced programmers you can find video tutorials at.
http://www.asp.net/mvc
It's hard to recommend one over the other without knowing what your application is. Whatever you do decide, make sure you keep your target audience in mind; not everyone is going to have Silverlight installed on their computers.
Personally, unless I was designing an incredibly interactive and beautiful web app, I would go with ASP.NET (with or without the MVC framework) if only for the fact that there is a ton of reference material for it while Silverlight is still relatively new territory.
It is mainly going to be an iternal product so browsers are not an issue. It's more about the price of development. Is it easier to learn Silverlight model or ASP.NET model? I expect that Silverlight is based on WebServices and so it might clearly divide my application code into a business logic (service) and presentation (silverlight application).
Given your background in .NET but limited Asp .net experience... I assume you are more of a service/client guy. Which will mean your javascript is probably just as limited... If this is the case, I'd go with Silverlight. It will ease you into WPF, which you may be likely to use in the future.
But more importantly working with Silverlight 2.0 feels more like building a sandboxed desktop application. More than a web application. You will be more at home with Silverlight if your prior experience is with client apps.
If you want to break into building web sites/applications go with ASP .NET MVC.
Either way knowledge of the typical ASP .NET controls will not go far, since they are for WebForms.
I would say - unless you need flash-like animation and interaction capabilities - go for ASP.NET. It's simpler to program against and doesn't require extra downloads for the users.
I think Silverlight is only required when you want to create applications like Flash. These applications are combined into a single executable which are downloaded once on the client machine. They can communicate with the server if they need any data or any functionality which resides on the server. The end user needs to install the Silverlight environment add-on to help run these applications.
Whereas if you create an asp.net application, its code resides and executes on the server itself and hence a simple internet browser can execute it. But the downside is that for user-interactive applications, there need to be separate calls made between the server and client machine when the code requires.