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.
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?
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 found these questions, but a couple of them were a little old:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/191556/should-i-pursue-asp-net-webforms-or-asp-net-mvc
Do you think ASP.NET MVC will compete with ASP.NET Webforms?
ASP.NET MVC > ASP.NET WebForms, Why?
I do not believe these are duplicates and might be old enough that new light can be shed. If not please close this.
I know that no one framework or language is necessarily the only tool for every job. But, do you see MVC eclipsing webforms or webforms going lower on the priority list for Microsoft? They will have to keep webforms for a long time because so many have invested in it, but they don't have to keep adding new functionality for it.
I don't know if this is a good example, but it reminds me of web parts. I never saw much improvement in it from Microsoft. It works and I thought it was great until I started to really try and get a lot out of it. Then from what I could see it just wasn't being pursued by Microsoft that much, though it stayed in Visual Studio. Maybe that's a bad example; just what I remembered.
EDIT: Also, if anyone has any statements from Microsoft on this subject it is appreciated. No offense to anyone. I was only hoping for something official.
this Microsoft answer:
ASP.NET MVC provides a framework that
enables you to easily implement the
model-view-controller (MVC) pattern
for Web applications. This pattern
lets you separate applications into
loosely coupled, pluggable components
for application design, processing
logic, and display.
ASP.NET MVC is not a replacement for
Webforms. It provides an alternative
choice when designing a Web
application. Using ASP.NET MVC offers
the following advantages:
• It enables you to achieve and
maintain a clear separation of
concerns
• It facilitates test driven
development (TDD)
• It provides more control over the
URLs you publish in the application
and over the HTML that is emitted by
the application
They both have different strengths.
MVC is great for public internet sites where precise control of the html and page lifecycle is important.
Webforms are great for corporate lan intranet sites, where development speed is critical, upstream bandwidth to the web server is plentiful, but memory on the server is more constrained.
Honestly, more asp.net programmers are probably doing the latter than the former.
WebForms are not going away. Microsoft gave it's developers a way to choose between traditional asp.net programming and the popular MVC way of programming. It's not competing against webforms it's just another choice for developers to use. Very Smart move from Microsoft to keep a hold of it's developer base.
I think ASP.NET MVC allows building much more maintainable applications. It also allows for automated testing of a very large part of the code.
If a website is reasonable in size and/or is going to have a reasonable life span then MVC plays a very good role.
I understand the argument of SEO for public sites, but I think the benefits of MVC make it excellent candidate for even intranet applications. Perhaps with some good collection user controls i.e helper methods, MVC can start dominating the field.
I believe rather developers' focus of interest will shift towards MVC.
As for the practical use scenarios, WebForms will likely continue to be used for applications and rather "closed" sites, while MVC will be the preferred choice for those sites facing public (and search engines, yes).
Just like everything else, I think further development will depend on how popular it becomes. The more people use it, the more Microsoft will likely invest in it's future.
It already seems to be quite popular, and judging from the popularity of similar frameworks in other languages (e.g. struts or rails) I think it'll continue to gain popularity.
See my response last time:
Is ASP.NET MVC swept under the rug to make room for MVC?
I believe ASP.NET MVC is not here to replace WebForms.
Instead it will give an alternative for ASP.NET developers who want to develop with separation of logic and view in mind, as well as performance and ease.
The introduction of .Net was bad for developers that had mastered VbScript, ASP Classic and being the few elite that could actually debug in Visual InterDev.
MVC is bad for those continuing on the path of WebForms only.
Pretty much by this time you should be able to recognize the hand writting on the walls as to whats coming down the pike.
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.
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...