I am a .Net developer that has been tasked with upgrading a classic asp website to asp.net. The website is currently running on luck and bubble gum but there is not enough time or money to stop progress and do a full rewrite. Of course I will still need to be able to deliver new features while I am upgrading.
What strategies should I use to make a smooth gradual change to asp.net? Should I convert to a single tier .net solution and then refactor to a proper multi-tier solution or should I design my business and data layers now? Should I go straight to 3.5 or is it easier to just get to 1.1 and upgrade to 2.0 or 3.5 after?
A full conversion would probably take 3-5 months. There is also some existing 1.1 code, which is why I am considering using that as a jumping off point.
Don't throw away your code!
It's the single worst mistake you can make (on a large codebase). See Things You Should Never Do, Part 1.
You've invested a lot of effort into that old code and worked out many bugs. Throwing it away is a classic developer mistake (and one I've done many times). It makes you feel "better", like a spring cleaning. But you don't need to buy a new apartment and all new furniture to outfit your house. You can work on one room at a time... and maybe some things just need a new paintjob. Hence, this is where refactoring comes in.
For new functionality in your app, write it in C# and call it from your classic ASP. You'll be forced to be modular when you rewrite this new code. When you have time, refactor parts of your old code into C# as well, and work out the bugs as you go. Eventually, you'll have replaced your app with all new code.
You could also write your own compiler. We wrote one for our classic ASP app a long time ago to allow us to output PHP. It's called Wasabi and I think it's the reason Jeff Atwood thought Joel Spolsky went off his rocker. Actually, maybe we should just ship it, and then you could use that.
It allowed us to switch our entire codebase to .NET for the next release while only rewriting a very small portion of our source. It also caused a bunch of people to call us crazy, but writing a compiler is not that complicated, and it gave us a lot of flexibility.
Also, if this is an internal only app, just leave it. Don't rewrite it - you are the only customer and if the requirement is you need to run it as classic asp, you can meet that requirement.
Having been a longtime classic asp programmer, and now an ASP.NET dev, I would take the time and architect it properly in the 2.0 framework (3.5 if you want/need the features).
My last job we had a large handful of very badly build classic asp apps that we were rebuilding, and the "nuke and pave" approach was the most successful. Use the existing classic app as your functional spec and wireframes, and build your tasks and tech specs off of that.
How long would a complete conversion/rewrite take? It's also going to depend on how you've structured your original project.
I can answer that you should just target v2.0 (3.5 if you want/need it's features) from the beginning. There's no need to subject yourself to 1.1 of the framework.
Try these links
Migrating from ASP
Key Considerations
Converting ASP to ASP.NET
ASP to ASP.NET Migration Guide
You may want to look at the new ASP.NET MVC framework. The level of flexibility is amazing and the coding style is slightly more akin to the ASP classic approach, albeit with much better separation of church and state.
Take a look at Snitz Forums (www.snitz.com) - they are currently in ASP but the port to ASP.NET is almost complete. Both code bases are available for you to look at so you may get an idea of how it has been done there to help you.
I would avoid going into .NET 1.1 since Microsoft is ending support for v 1.1 of the .NET Framework on 10/14/2008. The extended support runs through 10/8/2013 but is typically expensive to purchase. Any bugs or security holes will not be addressed and are your problem.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=11&y=10&p1=1249
Paul
easiest way to do it is to just jump in head first. get some asp.net books and dive into visual studio. Do the examples, play with it, build something fun for yourself. You'll learn by doing.
I'm also working on a gradual migration from classic ASP to ASP.NET. Our first phase is migrating some common logic from an ASP include to a .NET assembly that is exposed to COM Interop so they can be called by both classic ASP and ASP.NET. I've written some tests using ASPUnit to verify the behavior after migration to the .NET assembly (with the added benefit of safer refactoring). Once the core logic is in .NET, we can begin creating new pages in ASP.NET and migrating individual ASP pages to ASP.NET at our own pace.
I would recommend .NET 2.0 or 3.5 over 1.1. ASP.NET MVC looks like an attractive upgrade path.
Related
Now that Visual Studio 2010 RC is released I was wondering if anyone knows what pros/cons there are to upgrading my existing ASP.NET applications to target the .NET 4 framework? (Apart from waiting until the Final release which should be even more stable)
If you are not going to rewrite some parts of the application to use new features in ASP.NET 4.0, I don't think there are many benefits. Unless they introduced performance optimizations for already existing functionality, but I don't think you would get those automatically without modifying code.
Otherwise there are plenty of goodies like URL Routing, SEO optimizations, ViewState performance, etc.
At least, you must check if your webserver have support for ASP.NET 4.0 application pools.
Pros: You will be ready when it is final
Cons: Be ready for quite a few issues, if you have the time.
Here is a list and overview of some of the issues people are encountering and some praises:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/02/08/vs-2010-net-4-release-candidate.aspx
And my favorite resource as it is impossible to give you a break down of Pros and Cons considering what may be a pro for me, may be a con for you and vice versa:
http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/category/VSPreRelease,netdevelopmentprerelease,visualstudioprerelease,vstsprerelease
http://blogs.msdn.com/architectsrule/archive/2010/02/19/10-4-episode-41-downloading-and-installing-the-visual-studio-2010-release-candidate.aspx
If you're going to be using C# for your development, then here is one big thing that the next version of the framework and C# will have; Dynamic Types:
From Scott Hanselman's blog:
C# 4 (not 4.0, the marketing folks say it's .NET 4, etc.) adds the dynamic keyword. I've explained this saying:
"There's no way for you or I to know the type of this now, compiler, so let's hope that the runtime figures it out."
The key point here, in bold, because it's significant is: having the type dynamic means “use my runtime type for binding”.
This is something quite different from the current version of C# and could have some pretty signifigant ways in which code is written. So hidden in all of the hoopla, the new framework does have some added value compared to the current frameworks.
Hope this helps some.
You have the go live license --> you can use all new asp features in production.
But you will have a few problems with VS.
Although I develop all of my company’s web-sites in .net, all of my personal sites are still in "Classic ASP". I'm always being pressured to move away from it... but it works! Why change?
There are some reasons to change but in the end, if your sites are up and running and you don't really need the new stuff, stick with it.
One good reason to change is existing support from MS and the developers community. I guess is harder to get a answer for a problem with ASP since most people moved to .net long ago.
The only real reason would be because the technology is getting to the point where you're going to find yourself without a platform to run your code on.
...who knows how much longer Microsoft is going to keep Classic ASP support in IIS.
In general, I'd never upgrade working code just for the heck of it because it's in an older, deprecated language. Especially for something like a personal page.
I can think of one exception, though: are you currently in the job market? You probably don't want to give clients/employers the impression that you're stuck in Classic ASP land.
I have a lot of Classic ASP production code, though, and I feel you on the Classic ASP "backlash." It's actually kind of embarassing to have that .asp extension in your URLs. I've actually considered changing the extension on all the .asp files to something new and changing IIS' settings so that new extension is handled by the ASP component.
I was in a similar situation - working on .NET at the office, and 5 or 6 sites at home on ASP that worked fine. For me the compelling reason to switch was when the .NET MVC community preview was released. I had been working with other MVC frameworks for years and was glad to be able to use a well-built native MS one.
I have switched about 4 ASP sites over to MVC as a way to learn the new framework and I am really glad I did. I'll always have a soft spot for ASP (and can still remember enough to answer most questions), but .NET MVC feels so much more advanced.
If you feel your skills with what you do at your job is fine (don't need more practice) and you are happy with your personal sites the way they are then leave it.
The only thought to consider is if you were to want to use the personal sites as a way to promote yourself it could be viewed as old tech and thus your skills may be looked down upon.
It is outdate? absolutely, but is it Irrelevant? well it is based on scope of your application, if it is just a simple database driven (eg: CMS, e-commerce) i personally think that classic asp still relevant for that, in fact that I still use it for some CMS/e-commerce projects since I already have application legacy written with it and has satisfied my clients for years.
but if you going to build large business application with multi programmers involved then you may need to think about .NET
For me personally, ASP.NET has been more reliable. I mean, some bad ASP.NET code can't as easily take down IIS as some bad ASP code. Again, that's just from my own experiences. I don't know how much merit there is to it.
But I don't see the harm in running your personal sites in classic ASP really as long as it's working for you.
Classic ASP certainly isn't as common now as it was before the introduction of the .NET family, but I don't think you're hurting yourself much by maintaining personal sites in it. If you were self-employed and looking for work as a .NET developer, it might be odd to have personal sites only in Classic ASP; in that situation, you could convert one or more to .NET, and that might help you demonstrate your skills in both sets of languages.
Has anyone successfully used a CMS developed for standard ASP.NET with ASP.NET MVC?
I currently use Immediacy CMS and it seems to be quite tightly coupled with standard ASP.NET, but I'd really like to start using ASP.NET MVC.
Are there any CMS systems out there directed at MVC?
How could I persuade my employer to move to ASP.NET MVC?
I suggest take a look to Kooboo (kooboo.com), a simple to use but powerful for developers. Well documented API and based upon ASP.NET MVC (of course ;-)
N2 CMS has an example site in ASP.NET MVC that I've been playing around with that works quite nicely - note that the code is now hosted on Google Code.
The problem you've got is that many CMS' already do a lot of "routing" in that the pages you are requesting/editing don't actually exist on disk, but are all in a data store of some kind, and there's an HttpHandler or ISAPI Filter sitting in front of ASP.NET to intercept the requests and work out what should be happening.
I have not personally seen any of the big name CMS systems out there upgraded yet to take advantage of many of the new things the .NET framework offers, let alone start working on the MVC framework.
As with all things, a cost-benefit analysis is the best way to convince your boss to do anything. If you can point how how moving towards the MVC framework is going to make some immediate positives (as well as many long term positives) that can outweigh the costs (in time, energy, and money) in the switchover, then you have succeeded.
ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC are very different beasts in terms of how you develop applications on top of them. Technically, an ASP.NET MVC application is an ASP.NET application with some generic handler that invokes the core MVC framework.
The ASP.NET MVC framework is also relatively new (1.0 just released last MIX) and so it'll take a while before becoming mainstream.
How you can persuade your boss? Talk to him about the positive sides of ASP.NET MVC, and how it will improve his future business. There's plenty of material available to demonstrate that.
I do a lot of work using Immediacy (I used to work there) and I had thought about doing the same thing a couple of months ago. I think that the main issues would result from things like the plug-in handler, the idoc handler and (if your still using it) the ilink hander.
When you enable things like friendly URLS I think this would cause issues if you had similar named methods in your controller actions.
You may be able use some MVC in your project, I could see it working as an admin add-in but I couldn't see it being used to usefully in the main webroot.
I would think a CMS would have to be built using MVC in mind to get the most benefits from using the pattern, instead of trying to make it work in parallel with a pre-existing system API (limited as it is) and making more work for yourself.
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.
There are a lot of webs still using classic ASP instead of ASP.NET but that is not the question - "never change a running project".
The question is if it is still a first choice as a base for a new web-project or would it be worth to switch to ASP.NET? Would you recommend a classic ASP programmer another language to switch over? There was no single update to classic ASP since it first release but a lot of companies are still using it for new projects. Deservedly?
While I would personally never willingly choose to create another ASP project over an ASP.NET project, the single biggest reason to do so is "skillset". I'd definitely recommend an ASP developer pickup ASP.NET, but if there is a project needed "now", go with what you know. Then learn ASP.NET before you have another project. :)
ASP.NET has a number of improvements over ASP, but we (the collective former classic ASP developer community) created a number of good applications using classic ASP.
In my mind, there is absolutely no reason to use classic ASP compared to ASP.NET Webforms or ASP.NET MVC.
Unless you need to integrate with existing classic ASP applications, since some things (notably session) are not compatible across app boundries, leading to creative workarounds (WebServices running on your localhost...yuck).
Coming from a classic ASP background I had the same questions. 3-4 years ago I took the route of moving towards ASP.NET/VB. I can tell you that the cross-over from ASP/VBScript to ASP.NET/VB is little to none. I was actually quite frustrated with the whole .NET platform for the first few months (more like the first year!) and kept rolling back to classic ASP.
In the long run, I ended up starting from scratch and picked up ASP.NET/C#. Oddly enough, I felt that the syntax of C# was more natural, even though my background was in VBScript!
For regular web development, ASP.NET is like using a sledgehammer when a simple ping hammer will do. However, the sheer power behind the .NET platform makes it invaluable in an enterprise environment where your web is often time blurred with your other applications.
Given what I know now, I would have likely made the move to PHP. Not only is the programming style similar, but PHP really is dedicated toward the web. Whereas it is quite easy to get lost in the mass of information the .NET platform provides. And the rate at which the new .NET techonologies have been coming out in the recent past can and has become overwhelming.
To directly answer your question: if you are staying in the realm of web development then I'd recommend taking a hard look at PHP for your new projects.
I'd be very hard pressed to recommend using "classic" ASP for a new project, but, as with any new project - it should always be about choosing the tool that's best for the job, rather than using "Tool X", just because it's:
newer
better
the "latest thing"
If, for example, "Company X" (who are a small company with 20 employees) needed a new web application for their intranet for logging holiday/leave requests and the intranet server was an ageing NT4 box, Classic ASP would be the way to go. I would make the recommendation that they upgrade to a newer machine that could handle a supported server O/S such as Win2k3, but it may well be the case that they simply don't have the budget/need.
For existing projects it's no option to switch to another language in my opinion until you have to make some radical changes / additions. Reprogramming is time-consuming and your customer will not pay for it normally.
PHP is a nice web-language in my eyes, no question. But I wouldn't use it for very large projects because it is not pre-compiled which makes a good speed-up (my experience). But I left PHP-Development a few years ago, maybe there are some good improvements to this now. Also I wouldn't run PHP on an IIS nor would I run Apache on a Windows-Server. So when your whole server-equipment is based on windows you would have to setup a new server with linux/apache/php - more costs for your company the customers will not pay for.
I agree with most answers, there is no good reason to stay with classic asp for new projects forever and there should be made plans to make a changeover to another language. We program most new projects still with classic ASP at the moment because we have a lot of selfmade libraries to use with our CMS etc. and we have to rewrite them with .NET/C#. Also there have to be established some new coding-conventions (e.g. how to make a navigation, folder structure, ...) so we are working alongside on a sample-project in .NET and after finishing with it we will only make small changes to existing projects until we have a chance to redeem the rewrite at least partially with another assignment of the customer.
It's a slow process but I believe it have to be done sooner or later. (And I'm a big fan of the .NET-Framework, too! :-) )
You might consider looking at some of the differences between ASP classic and ASP.NET. Having had to maintain both in the past, I can tell you that there are numerous pleasures to present in developing in .NET vs. ASP Classic. Transitioning to any web-trendy language (PHP, ASP.NET, Ruby, Python) is going to be worth it if for nothing more than to realize where ASP Classic lacks.
I think its high time to switch over to Asp.net. The better object oriented way of asp.net will definitely help you to reduce code management night mares.
For any remaining ASP holdouts, I'd actually recommend jumping ship to PHP. It's a lot more like ASP than ASP.NET, and there's no shortage of new work in it.
That being said, I greatly prefer ASP.NET (both MVC and WebForms) myself - but, I left ASP development about 7 years ago. ;)
Like another poster mentioned, the skill set of the staff would be the deciding factor.
If it's a Classic ASP shop and something has to be done ASAP (what doesn't, right?), then it might be hard to convince management that there's a need for .NET, especially if it impacts the timeline. This is where adding in some .NET pages for one-off projects comes in handy, since it lets the dev team become familiar with the language and decide when to switch from Classic ASP to .NET.
Going forward, it's important to remember that while Classic ASP still runs and runs well, it's not going anywhere and you can't count on any updates/changes to the language/tools going forward.
That being said, from my experience, I've found that jQuery/Ajax/DOM scripting gives the Classic ASP pages a new shot of life and add some of the "fancy/cool" stuff that my clients want to see on their sites.
I wouldn't write a new app/website in classic asp. Why? number of reasons:
1) no classic asp bugs are fixed any longer by MS, eventually the support will cease to exist, it has to.
2) .net is much faster performance wise
3) .net has a lot of useful extenstion (AJAX for example)
4) skillset - when thinking of a technology you have to be sure that you can find someone to maintain it easily in the future
.net has been around for awhile and it's tested, so it's safe (and recommended) to switch over, for new projects for sure.
well I honestly wouldnt... With asp .net you can take advantage of the .net framework, and object oriented programming... That alone is good enough reason for me to use asp .net instead of classic asp...
Our team has twice been asked to significantly "upgrade" a classic ASP site and in both cases, it was such a nightmare that we converted/re-wrote it in ASP.Net. I know the "Don't rewrite what's working" mantra, but knowing that we or someone else would have to continue to maintain the codebase and seeing how horrible the ASP code was to maintain, we decided to make a clean break.
For that reason alone, I see nothing to recommend ever writing anything else in classic ASP. If ASP.Net is not an option, I'd go with PHP or Ruby.
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...