ASP vs ASP.NET

Complete newbie questions!

Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?

I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a whole lot
more, is more up to date and more future proof, so would prefer that some
work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why would a company I am
dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP? They have said that ASP.NET
is not proven and so ASP is more reliable. They have also said that they are
more experienced with ASP than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the
same? I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.

Richard

Aaron
Tue Jun 22 10:41:52 CDT 2004

> Why would a company I am
> dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP?

- learning curve (it is NOT ASP+)
- consistency with existing codebase
- fear of change

> wouldn't the "language" be the same?

NO! ASP is typically written in VBScript or JScript. ASP.Net is typically
written in VB.Net or C#.

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Scott
Tue Jun 22 10:46:24 CDT 2004

"Richard Liddiment" <Richard@cfp-software.co.uk> wrote in
news:cb9ia0$53e$1@hercules.btinternet.com:

> Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

Because it's easier to code in (at least for me)

> Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?

Because it's more robust

> I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a
> whole lot more, is more up to date and more future proof, so would
> prefer that some work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why
> would a company I am dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP?

Their developer pool is probably primarily ASP, and is not comfortable
with the .NET architecture.

> They have said that ASP.NET is not proven and so ASP is more reliable.
> They have also said that they are more experienced with ASP than
> ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the same?

Um, mostly. It's just similar enough to provide a false sense of
security. A good example would be Olde Englishe versus modern English -
technically they're the same language, but in practice and structure
there are key differences, and somebody speaking one would have a very
hard time understanding somebody who spoke the other.

> I am a complete
> novice to this so would like some impartial comments on whether I
> should insist they use ASP.NET.

Well, this isn't exactly impartial, but I personally prefer ASP because
I can whip some code out pretty fast in it without having to struggle
over it.

Patrice
Tue Jun 22 11:06:54 CDT 2004

ASP is simpler as you are on your own. If you have something in ASP that
work, an upgrade is not always worth.

ASP.NET provides a whole infrastructure that mimics the usual event driven
programming in Windows. You have access to the whole .NET library (such as
drawings) and you have modules for most common tasks (such as form
authentication). IMO harder for newbies (as it hides the Web underlying
principles which is both an advantage/disavantadge).

Languages are not identical (ASP.NET uses C#, Visual Basic 2003 or any other
.NET based language) instead of JavaScript, VBScript...

--

"Richard Liddiment" <Richard@cfp-software.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:cb9ia0$53e$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Complete newbie questions!
>
> Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?
>
> Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?
>
> I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a whole
lot
> more, is more up to date and more future proof, so would prefer that some
> work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why would a company I am
> dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP? They have said that
ASP.NET
> is not proven and so ASP is more reliable. They have also said that they
are
> more experienced with ASP than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the
> same? I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
> on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.
>
> Richard
>
>

James
Tue Jun 22 11:21:54 CDT 2004

Personally, I prefer ASP.NET. The learning curve is certainly higher, but
some of the features are well worth the "upgrade" (so to speak) in my mind.
I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I don't
really have that style of an option with ASP.

The truly object oriented nature is also a large selling point to me, and
code re-use becomes a lot easier. I love the fact that I can write a DLL in
C# and have a fellow programmer using VB.NET access that DLL without using
C# syntax.

Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET specific
features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter time
frame (post learning curve) than I can with "classic" ASP.

James

Aaron
Tue Jun 22 11:33:32 CDT 2004

> I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I don't
> really have that style of an option with ASP.

JScript comes pretty close, no?

> Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET
specific
> features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
> archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter
time

I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the ".NET
specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very verbose
.NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
subjective arguments can really fall both ways...

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

James
Tue Jun 22 11:50:01 CDT 2004

"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
news:u0THNbHWEHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I
don't
> > really have that style of an option with ASP.
>
> JScript comes pretty close, no?

JScript is similar, and certainly a lot closer than VBScript. Unfortunately
at my current position I'm stuck with VBScript, so I'll have to suck it up.

>
> > Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET
> specific
> > features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
> > archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter
> time
>
> I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the
".NET
> specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
> development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very verbose
> .NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
> subjective arguments can really fall both ways...

I agree to an extent. There are some things that I can crank out in notepad
with ASP in less time than it would take me to load VS.NET. There is a lot
of overhead for "smaller" projects in .NET. The platform you choose
certainly depends on your project type/scale. For large scale applications,
I'd have to give the edge to .NET, especially for multi-person development.
For a relatively small, quick deadline application...I might just crank it
out with ASP. Granted, this is all a matter of opinion.

I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.

Bob
Tue Jun 22 12:07:38 CDT 2004

<<<<I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
interpreted nature is a blessing.>>>>

I don't understand this comment. How is the code being compiled a blessing
for contract work?

Bob Lehmann


"James Baker" <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uyoY3jHWEHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> news:u0THNbHWEHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I
> don't
> > > really have that style of an option with ASP.
> >
> > JScript comes pretty close, no?
>
> JScript is similar, and certainly a lot closer than VBScript.
Unfortunately
> at my current position I'm stuck with VBScript, so I'll have to suck it
up.
>
> >
> > > Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET
> > specific
> > > features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP is
> > > archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a shorter
> > time
> >
> > I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the
> ".NET
> > specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
> > development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very
verbose
> > .NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
> > subjective arguments can really fall both ways...
>
> I agree to an extent. There are some things that I can crank out in
notepad
> with ASP in less time than it would take me to load VS.NET. There is a
lot
> of overhead for "smaller" projects in .NET. The platform you choose
> certainly depends on your project type/scale. For large scale
applications,
> I'd have to give the edge to .NET, especially for multi-person
development.
> For a relatively small, quick deadline application...I might just crank it
> out with ASP. Granted, this is all a matter of opinion.
>
> I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
> interpreted nature is a blessing.
>
>

Aaron
Tue Jun 22 12:23:59 CDT 2004

Source code protection, I'll assume?

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)




"Bob Lehmann" <none> wrote in message
news:uHhFytHWEHA.2716@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> <<<<I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
> interpreted nature is a blessing.>>>>
>
> I don't understand this comment. How is the code being compiled a blessing
> for contract work?
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
>
> "James Baker" <cppjames@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uyoY3jHWEHA.1152@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message
> > news:u0THNbHWEHA.1952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > I tend to prefer C type syntax, so C# is perfect for me...whereas I
> > don't
> > > > really have that style of an option with ASP.
> > >
> > > JScript comes pretty close, no?
> >
> > JScript is similar, and certainly a lot closer than VBScript.
> Unfortunately
> > at my current position I'm stuck with VBScript, so I'll have to suck it
> up.
> >
> > >
> > > > Visual Studio.NET is a powerful tool as well, and has a lot of .NET
> > > specific
> > > > features. By no means am I saying that .NET is perfect or that ASP
is
> > > > archaic, I just personally feel that I can get more done, in a
shorter
> > > time
> > >
> > > I use Visual Studio.NET for ASP development, without using all of the
> > ".NET
> > > specific features." Things like IntelliSense do aid in more rapid
> > > development. I still find I spend way more time constructing very
> verbose
> > > .NET code to do things I can do in far fewer lines in ASP. So the
> > > subjective arguments can really fall both ways...
> >
> > I agree to an extent. There are some things that I can crank out in
> notepad
> > with ASP in less time than it would take me to load VS.NET. There is a
> lot
> > of overhead for "smaller" projects in .NET. The platform you choose
> > certainly depends on your project type/scale. For large scale
> applications,
> > I'd have to give the edge to .NET, especially for multi-person
> development.
> > For a relatively small, quick deadline application...I might just crank
it
> > out with ASP. Granted, this is all a matter of opinion.
> >
> > I do also like the fact that for contract work, .NET's compiled vs.
> > interpreted nature is a blessing.
> >
> >
>
>

James
Tue Jun 22 12:36:24 CDT 2004

> Source code protection, I'll assume?
>
> --
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
> (Reverse address to reply.)


Exactly. Depending on the contract, sometimes they pay for the source code
and it's a one time shot with no maintenance contract. In that case, it
makes little/no difference. I can't count the times, however, where we've
had someone go in and tinker with the code only to find out that they had no
idea what they were doing, and it can be seriously painful to figure out
what they did. As much as this might mean more cash in the long run, I'd
just as soon avoid the issue entirely.

jeff
Tue Jun 22 17:08:53 CDT 2004

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:13:05 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Liddiment"
<Richard@cfp-software.co.uk> wrote:

>Complete newbie questions!
>
>Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

Because you know it.

>Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?

Because you need to do things you can't in ASP classic.

>I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP plus a whole lot
>more...

Stop assuming and start learning.

> is more up to date and more future proof, so would prefer that some
>work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET. Why would a company I am
>dealing with prefer to stick with standard ASP?

Asked and answered. Refer to your very first question.

>They have said that ASP.NET
>is not proven and so ASP is more reliable.

They don't know how to make ASP.NET do what you want.

>They have also said that they are
>more experienced with ASP than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the
>same?

Neither ASP nor ASP.NET is a language, so the answer is no. ASP is
Jscript or VBScript, ASP.NET is often C# and sometimes VBScript.
Functionality, performance and compatibility issues vary for each as
well.

>I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
>on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.

1) It's your dime, get what you want.

2) It's their ability you're paying for, don't force them out of
their comfort zone.

3) Hire a company that you trust and let them do it the way they know
will do what you want.

4) Your current developers don't meet the first half of #3.

Jeff

Aaron
Wed Jun 23 08:10:49 CDT 2004

> ASP.NET is often C# and sometimes VBScript.

VB.Net, not VBScript...

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Zenobia
Wed Jun 23 09:06:39 CDT 2004

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:13:05 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Liddiment"
<Richard@cfp-software.co.uk> wrote:

>Complete newbie questions!
>
>Why use ASP instead of ASP.NET?

There is no good reason to use ASP rather than ASP.NET

>Why use ASP.NET instead of ASP?

Because it's better at everything.

>I am assuming that ASP.NET has all of the "features" of ASP

Not quite. I'm sure that ASP has at least one feature that
ASP.NET doesn't!

However the point of ASP.NET is that it's a completely different
way of working which, I think we can all agree, is better for
99% of jobs.

> plus a whole lot more, is more up to date and more future proof,

and helps the programmer to be more efficient - it should take
less time to code.

> so would prefer that some
>work I want undertaken is written in ASP.NET.

Very sensible of you.

> Why would a company I am dealing with prefer to stick with
> standard ASP?

!!? Who can say. A good ASP programmer could probably start
using ASP.NET within weeks. It's hard to imagine why they
wouldn't.

OK. I'll have a go at answering your question. If the active
server part is not that great there probably isn't much of a
need to move to ASP.NET. Maybe they are primarily a web design
company that do some active server pages? Perhaps the market
demand in their sector of the market is not great enough?

> They have said that ASP.NET is not proven and so ASP is
> more reliable.

Sounds like inertia to me. ASP.NET is proven and would be MORE
reliable for most of the web-sites one would design with it. For
instance. a) Because it avoids client-side code there should be
no browser incompatibility problems. b) Complex pages can be
written in ASP.NET with more adherence to software engineering
concepts, so ASP.NETsites should be easier to maintain.

>They have also said that they are more experienced with ASP
> than ASP.NET but wouldn't the "language" be the same?

At the time it was launched everyone was more experienced with
ASP.NET ASP.NET is a huge leap forward from ASP. The languages
are not the same, but not that different. Please understand that
when one codes in ASP the one uses several "languages": ASP,
VBScript, Javascript, HTML, XML, SQL, ADO... In comparison
ASP.NET includes ASP.NET, VB 7, C#, Javascript, HTML, XML and
SQL, ADO.NET. So many of the languages are the same but some are
quite different. Within the preceding 2 lists ASP is very
different to ASP.NET.

>I am a complete novice to this so would like some impartial comments
>on whether I should insist they use ASP.NET.

No one will give you in impartial comment. But I think you
should also have posted this to
news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet, so I've sent my
reply there too.

>Richard

Aaron
Wed Jun 23 09:17:19 CDT 2004

> Because it's better at everything.

Bwahahahaha! That's pretty funny. Especially when you immediately say:

> I'm sure that ASP has at least one feature that
> ASP.NET doesn't!

> I think we can all agree, is better for
> 99% of jobs.

I think if you look through this thread, you'll see that, no, we don't all
agree with that. I still believe that ASP is a much more rapid development
environment for smaller, fewer-people projects. And I imagine most of us
are involved in such projects.

> and helps the programmer to be more efficient - it should take
> less time to code.

I spend a LOT more time jumping through all the hoops of establishing a
datareader than I ever did using a recordset and getrows. It's a lot more
code and because the syntax is a lot tighter a lot more can -- and often
does -- go wrong. In almost all cases I've approached so far, development
time in ASP.NET was longer than it would have been in ASP. For much larger
scale projects, then yes, I can see how the new architecture can help.
However, in much larger scale projects, the technology chosen is usually not
based on one guy asking for opinions in a public newsgroup. Most of us are
not making decisions about projects of that magnitude.

> a) Because it avoids client-side code

ASP.NET avoids client-side code? Are you sure you've used it?

--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)

Zenobia
Wed Jun 23 09:37:59 CDT 2004

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 10:17:19 -0400, "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]"
<ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote:

>> Because it's better at everything.
>
>Bwahahahaha! That's pretty funny. Especially when you immediately say:
>
>> I'm sure that ASP has at least one feature that
>> ASP.NET doesn't!
>
>> I think we can all agree, is better for
>> 99% of jobs.
>
>I think if you look through this thread, you'll see that, no, we don't all
>agree with that. I still believe that ASP is a much more rapid development
>environment for smaller, fewer-people projects. And I imagine most of us
>are involved in such projects.
>
>> and helps the programmer to be more efficient - it should take
>> less time to code.
>
>I spend a LOT more time jumping through all the hoops of establishing a
>datareader than I ever did using a recordset and getrows. It's a lot more
>code and because the syntax is a lot tighter a lot more can -- and often
>does -- go wrong. In almost all cases I've approached so far, development
>time in ASP.NET was longer than it would have been in ASP.

Coding time is only part of the time. What about design time
and, especially, maintenance time? Which environment would you
prefer then?

>For much larger
>scale projects, then yes, I can see how the new architecture can help.
>However, in much larger scale projects, the technology chosen is usually not
>based on one guy asking for opinions in a public newsgroup. Most of us are
>not making decisions about projects of that magnitude.
>
>> a) Because it avoids client-side code
>
>ASP.NET avoids client-side code? Are you sure you've used it?

I accept your point but the use of client-side code within
ASP.NET is more limited and nearly always avoidable or
replaceable by server-side code. Much more so than ASP.

Why did you remove news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
from the headers when you replied to my post? I've added it back
but people in news:microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet
should probably start at the root if they want to understand
this thread. Begin here:
Message-ID: <cb9ia0$53e$1@hercules.btinternet.com>