The Design of Software (CLOSED)

A public forum for discussing the design of software, from the user interface to the code architecture. Now closed.

The "Design of Software" discussion group has been merged with the main Joel on Software discussion group.

The archives will remain online indefinitely.

ASP

Do you think ASP is old hat?
I built my new cookery site in a couple of weeks, using dreamweaver templates. I gave up using ASP.NET with master pages, cause its so clumsy, and I wouldn't have got such great results.
What do you think : www.worldwidekitchen.com
Jim Dunstan Send private email
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
 
 
Sorry getting errors! never good ona live site to see errors like this, leaves you open to some nasty hacking, sql injection and the like. best to use ON Error Resume next in ASP and if you have access to the server, change the way errors are reported to the user
:)

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80040e14'

[MySQL][ODBC 3.51 Driver][mysqld-5.0.19-nt]You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'AND Region LIKE '%uk%' AND style LIKE '%pie%' ORDER BY Rating / RatingSubmisson' at line 1

/recipe_results.asp, line 85
Dave
Thursday, August 31, 2006
 
 
"Do you think ASP is old hat?"

Definately.  That doesn't make it useless.  I'd avoid it for anything big or complicated or reusable but it's certainly fine for small one-off projects.

Have you considered ASP's better cousin, PHP?
Almost H. Anonymous Send private email
Thursday, August 31, 2006
 
 
I thought about looking at php. Heard good things about it, but I'm so used to microsoft stuff, and I've enough on my plate with having to learn new versions of .NET, sql server, mysql etc.
I agree that ASP soon gets unwieldy when if you are building anything big. Its fine for a site like mine. (at the moment). I was pleased that ASP works so easily with mysql. Its a great database - I like it much more than MS SQL, and its free ! :-)
Jim Dunstan Send private email
Thursday, August 31, 2006
 
 
Have you looked at the intro videos available for Visual Web Developer Express, which are available on the MS VWDX download site?

I had some trouble with the ASP.Net master pages until watching them.

You can also find some good videos at:

http://www.learn2asp.net


If you're considering making the move to .Net, both sets of videos should help you to make a better informed decision.
*myName
Thursday, August 31, 2006
 
 
Jim, in the Microsoft world, ASP.Net version 2 is so far superior to old-school ASP that I just can't imagine doing without it!

Just a few benefits:

The .Net runtime lets you use your choice of languages.
Code-behind separates the business logic from the HTML.
Partial classes let you not have to see the plumbing code.
Full compilation means the server does not host any source code.
The configuration model is very flexible about defaults vs. overrides.  Caching is also flexible.
There's such a huge wealth of training material, community support, free tools, etc.
You get master pages and themes built into the hosting environment.

Etc., etc.  This is a real question: why would you want to stay with the limitations of ASP?
Flow
Thursday, August 31, 2006
 
 
Well,
I'm not sure I do want to stay with classic ASP. All of the points you made are big winners, and I do like ASP.NET. I just feel that the visual designer is nowhere near as good as Dreamweaver. When using VS 2005 page designer, I find that I often cant resize table cells, and have to hand edit the html, but there can be a significant delay in switching from layout view to code view (and back). Its a pain.
BigJim Send private email
Friday, September 01, 2006
 
 
Remember that ASP.NET and Visual Studio are two completely different things.  Yes, I too would never do serious web design work in Visual Studio design mode, but that doesn't indicate a problem with ASP.NET.

I believe, in fact, that Dreamweaver supports ASP.NET, so you could use Visual Studio when you're creating your code-behind files and server-side classes (to get you the better Intellisense and automated creation of event handling code), and then use Dreamweaver when you add styling to the front-end stuff.

Myself, I create everything in Visual Studio, but the styling is pure CSS, so I'm never "resizing table cells" or anything like that.  Edit the CSS and "view in browser".  Repeat.  (Or actually, use the Firefox Web Developer plug-in to edit the CSS right in the browser and see the results.  When it's perfect, paste back into the CSS file.)
Jacob Send private email
Friday, September 01, 2006
 
 
Jim -- took a look at your site.  It looks good, but believe me when I tell you that when you switch to CSS-based layout instead of using HTML tables for your layout, your life will improve dramatically.  (Your truck will start, your dog will come home, your girl will love you again...)

Here's a place to start:
http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/stylesheets/csslayout.html

also
http://www.glish.com/css/
Jacob Send private email
Friday, September 01, 2006
 
 
Also, while generally seen this way, ASP.NET != System.Web.UI.*

Check out Maverick.NET (an MVC model container,) which runs under the ASP.NET runtime, but offers pluggable UI/View generation models.  You can still use System.Web.UI.* stuff if you want, but you can also use various template engines such as NVelocity and StringTemplate.NET.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater: you can write your web apps in .NET without being confined to the "ASP.NET Controls."

As always, YMMV.
Ian P. McCullough Send private email
Friday, September 01, 2006
 
 
Is it only I who doesn't think it's a good thing NOT to see the 'behind plumbing code' or whatever one should call it?
I don't like the idea of having to rely on code I haven't written myself, or worse, haven't even read through and analyzed at the very least.
Mikael Bergkvist Send private email
Saturday, September 02, 2006
 
 
ASP is fine if you are comfortable with it. If you are starting a site from scratch, and have access to a Microsoft server anyway, seems to me the visual designer benefits of using .NET in VS are too great to ignore (although I would not use .NET for a desktop app).

Not exactly sure what you are asking though. Looks to me like you have already done a considerable amount of coding in ASP classic already. Each language can produce similar VISUAL results, but is the back-end scaling (and ease of use) that .NET provides that you have to work harder for in ASP Classic. Either one will enable you to produce your site, though.
Anthony Dunleavy Send private email
Sunday, September 03, 2006
 
 
I'm a longtime Microsoft coder, love .NET, and still use ASP for UIs.

I write virtually all of the programming logic in .NET, but still hand-edit my HTML in ASP and consume .NET via WebServices from there.  This allows me to favor C# or VB.NET depending on the task and not have to worry about ASP.NET's crazy UI model.

Not that I think DreamWeaver code is that much better, but the forced layout of labels, etc., keeps me from using VS.NET's WYSIWYG.

-Matt
Matt Lavallee Send private email
Saturday, September 09, 2006
 
 
Matt, you seem to understand my point.
VS 2005 UI just doesnt cut it.
Jim
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
 
 

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
 
Powered by FogBugz