asp.net vs classic asp

Guest

hi there
Is it hard to learn asp.net? What are the advantages over classic asp?

I sometimes have to code a few pages in asp. I just write them up in notepad and bang them on the server. I use my old pages as templates. If I use asp.net do I have to get some development tool to do this? Is it much more work than asp?

I have a new project starting soon and I'm wondering do I have time to learn asp.net and knock it up that way? I have access to the MS dev tools, so it's not the cost just that I don't want to spend a lot of time learning to use v studio or whatever. It all looks a bit daunting.

I guess I'm going to have to learn it sometime. Does anyone know a good book to start with?

thanks

louie

sorry to say it man but if the moderators knows what your nick name means you are going to get banned.

I was going to go that way myself, but moved to php instead.
I have 5 years doing asp but I don't thing i'll ever go back to Microsoft tools.

muckwarrior

пизд&#1072 wrote:

hi there
Is it hard to learn asp.net?

If you're used to developing in classic ASP then maybe. ASP.NET is quite a different concept but once you get your head around this you wont look back.

What are the advantages over classic asp?

Too many for me to list.

I sometimes have to code a few pages in asp. I just write them up in notepad and bang them on the server. I use my old pages as templates. If I use asp.net do I have to get some development tool to do this? Is it much more work than asp?

No you don't have to use a development tool, but it's probably worth learning VS.NET in the long run.

I have a new project starting soon and I'm wondering do I have time to learn asp.net and knock it up that way? I have access to the MS dev tools, so it's not the cost just that I don't want to spend a lot of time learning to use v studio or whatever. It all looks a bit daunting.

I guess I'm going to have to learn it sometime. Does anyone know a good book to start with?

thanks

Well if you have to learn it sometime then no time like the present! This is the book I'm using for my MCAD. It'll give you a great understanding as to how the technology works. There's also tonnes of tutorials and examples on the web that'll show you how to perform common tasks.

stevenmu

I've done some classic ASP and after moving to ASP.Net, I'd never go back. I'd seriously suggest you switch, for anything other than the most basic project the time you spend learning ASP.Net will easily be made up doing the project itself, and you'll end up with a much better web app to boot. That said, when I switched I'd already been using VB.Net for windows apps so it did come kind of naturally to me. I'd suggest getting familiar with visual studio (or I think Visual Web Developer is available free ?) but you can also hand code everything very easily .I think sharpdevelop handled ASP.Net 1.1 pretty well too, never tried it for 2 though (and you should really go to 2, 1.1 had issues)

In terms of advantages, first off you're coding in .Net so you get all the OO goodness and rich API's of VB.Net or C# (or both if that takes your fancy).

My own personal favourite is the viewstate and event handling model. In complicated forms there's no more having to worry about which controls you want to render, no need to kludge in ways of keeping track of the values of form elements, and no more having to try and figure out which form element triggered a postback so you can handle it as an event. Simply add server controls to a form, and you can more or less treat them as you would controls in a windows application and add standard event handlers for them. .Net takes care of rendering the controls, keeping track of there values and firing your event handlers where appropriate. (I'm not sure if I've explained all that very well, but trust me, it's very very good)

The built in server controls are very usefull also, things like the gridview take so much hassle out of crafting a rich interface.

As muckwarrior said, there's too many advantages to list, this is just scratching the surface. Basically just think of everything that's wrong with ASP and that gives you some idea of what's right about ASP.Net.

NutJob

Moderator def wont like that as a name

Nietzschean

very naughty name lol

Guest

stevenmu wrote:

My own personal favourite is the viewstate and event handling model. In complicated forms there's no more having to worry about which controls you want to render, no need to kludge in ways of keeping track of the values of form elements, and no more having to try and figure out which form element triggered a postback so you can handle it as an event. Simply add server controls to a form, and you can more or less treat them as you would controls in a windows application and add standard event handlers for them. .Net takes care of rendering the controls, keeping track of there values and firing your event handlers where appropriate. (I'm not sure if I've explained all that very well, but trust me, it's very very good)

The built in server controls are very usefull also, things like the gridview take so much hassle out of crafting a rich interface. .

Do you get data bound controls so you don't write loops to show rows of data? Is viewstate some kind of debugging tool? I don't know much about event driven programming - the only events I'm handling in classic asp are button clicks. Event driven coding looks a bit tricky what with event bubbling and the like.

stevenmu

пизд&#1072 wrote:

Do you get data bound controls so you don't write loops to show rows of data? Is viewstate some kind of debugging tool? I don't know much about event driven programming - the only events I'm handling in classic asp are button clicks. Event driven coding looks a bit tricky what with event bubbling and the like.

Yes, most of the controls can handle databinding.

Viewstate is the mechanism ASP.Net uses to keep track of all your controls, and their values etc, so you don't have to worry about them every time the page reloads (postbacks). But since you mention it, ASP.Net (with visual studio anyway) allows for line by line debugging with with breakpoints and watches and all that other usefull stuff.

The event driven code is easier than it sounds, just write the code you want to happen when an event fires, don't worry about bubbling or anything like that. ASP.Net takes care of figuring out what event happened and calling the appropriate code.

Guest

thanks all for the guidance.

Tobias Greeshman

Ha Ha!! Love the name mate!

muckwarrior

silas wrote:

Ha Ha!! Love the name mate!

Am I the only one that doesn't get it?
Someone please pm me.

stevenmu

Google answers all (just don't do an image search )

sailorfoley

Microsoft have free versions of their IDE's for .Net called the express range. C# express, VB.Net express, web developer express, etc.

I would recommend the move from ASP to ASP.net as ASP.Net is a far more powerful technology and allows you to be more productive using RAD techniques.
E.g. When designing web pages you drag / drop contols from the toolbar just like in VB 6 or windows forms.

Defintely worth the time investment anyways

अधिनायक

(I was asked to change username and re-register)
OK so I downloaded the express versions and they're very impressive.

All that context-sensitive malarkey.

I had this notion that asp.net apps got compiled into a dll which was then dropped on the server but it seems not.

Afraid I ain't got time to use this for the next project but maybe the one after. I'll have to put in a few hours besides work every day.

I reckon I'll do the exams too. I know people often say the exams are worthless but I find they give a bit of structure to self-study.

anyhows cheers again.

stevenmu

अधिनाय&#2325 wrote:

I had this notion that asp.net apps got compiled into a dll which was then dropped on the server but it seems not.

In a way they are, the webserver compiles the sources if needed when requests are made and caches the dll somewhere (if you update the sources it'll automatically recompile when the next request is made). Much better than having to interpret the source each time like classic ASP. I think there is someway to precompile and just deploy the dll but I'm not sure how.

Kernel32

I didn't know there was a way to deploy without compiling into assemblies?

I compile the web application and then do a precompile which creates the assemblies in the bin folder. You can also choose at this point to have all the markup removed from the aspx and compiled instead.

Mutant_Fruit

I had this notion that asp.net apps got compiled into a dll which was then dropped on the server but it seems not.

They are. All your backend code (c# or VB) gets compiled into a DLL and all your aspx pages get generated. To make the app work, you need the DLL and aspx pages on the server.

mewso

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

They are. All your backend code (c# or VB) gets compiled into a DLL and all your aspx pages get generated. To make the app work, you need the DLL and aspx pages on the server.

Thats the 1.1 model. Version 2 does not produce a dll by default and you need to deploy your code files. You can optionally compile the whole site (aspx pages and all).

stevenmu

musician wrote:

Thats the 1.1 model. Version 2 does not produce a dll by default and you need to deploy your code files. You can optionally compile the whole site (aspx pages and all).

Thanks for clearing that up, I knew I'd deployed a dll at some point but more recently only the source files.

Seth Brundle

stevenmu wrote:

Google answers all (just don't do an image search )

It seems this thread is the 6th result when searching English results
http://www.google.ie/search?q=%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0&hl=en&hs=gU9&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&lr=lang_en&sa=X&oi=lrtip8