Classic ASP - is the market dead?

deweyzeph said:
If you still think Classic ASP is the best tool for the job then you clearly have no business being a programmer and clearly have no idea of object-oriented programming, design patterns, separation of concerns and all the other modern programming techniques that .NET allows you to practice. Try creating a presentation layer, business object layer and a database layer with Classic ASP and you'll have yourself twisted into knots. Try creating a web service with Classic ASP and you'll probably end up killing yourself.

Really guys, Classic ASP is a dinosaur that belongs in the nineties. .NET and C# is where it's at, and I can promise you if you know what you're doing with C# you will never be out of a job in South Africa. There is a MASSIVE shortage of skilled .NET developers in South Africa.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't know ****-all then. A client that needs a website to show-case their stamp collection do not need a presentation layer with separate business logic or database layers. They also don't have the budget for it. (You're one of those programmers mentioned in other threads that will take 6 months to do something that could've been done in 1 week)

If you ever worked as a programmer for longer than 5 years you would already be able to separate your presentation layer/business logic/database layer in Classic ASP without the "knots" you mentioned. Those "knots" you see most likely comes from inexperienced n00b *******s who didn't know any better.

It's not the programming language but the PROGRAMMER (Mother****er) that makes all the difference. I can give you several "proper" .NET web applications that's 10x slower than their Classic ASP counterpart and 100x more effort to edit/change/add to.

If I need a web service I use .NET and then call it from Classic ASP. It's 8 ****ing lines of code to call ANY web service (doesn't even have to be .NET) with Classic ASP. But sure, if you want to write your entire site in flash or JavaScript and ignore where what technology is more beneficial, go ahead.
 
Ancalagon said:
No really, it is. Classic ASP is interpreted and .Net is compiled, the difference is night and day.
Click to expand...

I agree that the one is interpreted and the other is compiled, but that doesn't make a difference in speed when you know what you're doing.

I give you the ".NET has better built-in **** if you ever need to do something advanced". But if you take a normal website, with a CMS back-end and a WYSIWYG editor for the client (as an example), I can guarantee you that my Classic ASP website would equal, if not better, the speed of your .NET one without compromising the "presentation layer" separation from business/database logic/layers.
 
AcidRaZor said:
I agree that the one is interpreted and the other is compiled, but that doesn't make a difference in speed when you know what you're doing.

I give you the ".NET has better built-in **** if you ever need to do something advanced". But if you take a normal website, with a CMS back-end and a WYSIWYG editor for the client (as an example), I can guarantee you that my Classic ASP website would equal, if not better, the speed of your .NET one without compromising the "presentation layer" separation from business/database logic/layers.
Click to expand...

Even if it is faster, and I still find that hard to believe, from a code layout point of view, .Net is infinitely better. Yes, competent classic ASP devs know how to layout their code so as to avoid having SQL, VB and Html all in one file. But most dont, they produce reams of cr@p which someone else has to maintain. ASP.Net is a lot better at forcing separation of concerns. You can still have inline SQL, if thats what you like, but at least its in your codebehind and not mixed into your presentation layer. I cannot think of a single reason to use classic ASP - the built in types also allow you to write quicker, as its a lot quicker to create a listview than to write your own function that spits out formatted HTML. And easier to debug.
 
I really can't help but feel that anybody who so passionately defends Classic ASP over .NET really doesn't understand .NET or object-orientated programming at all.
 
deweyzeph said:
I really can't help but feel that anybody who so passionately defends Classic ASP over .NET really doesn't understand .NET or object-orientated programming at all.
Click to expand...

^^ This.

I need to bookmark this thread... so much to add, so little time during working hours.
 
Ancalagon said:
Even if it is faster, and I still find that hard to believe, from a code layout point of view, .Net is infinitely better. Yes, competent classic ASP devs know how to layout their code so as to avoid having SQL, VB and Html all in one file. But most dont, they produce reams of cr@p which someone else has to maintain. ASP.Net is a lot better at forcing separation of concerns. You can still have inline SQL, if thats what you like, but at least its in your codebehind and not mixed into your presentation layer. I cannot think of a single reason to use classic ASP - the built in types also allow you to write quicker, as its a lot quicker to create a listview than to write your own function that spits out formatted HTML. And easier to debug.
Click to expand...
To be quite honest, I detest almost all the standard <asp:Control /> controls. For the most part, they render extra markup that I don't need or WANT, not to mention bloating the page with the *shudder* __VIEWSTATE hidden field. Even turning off View State on every single page and control, you still get it rendered back to the page because of the Control State. Only solution is to write your own custom page class to explicitly disable View and Control States. This effectively renders postbacks impossible, but any web developer worth his salt should know how to use Request.Form anyway... I find this gives you a lot more control over what you want to do and how you want it displayed in ASP.NET Web Forms. Building Views based on XSLT, from a serialized (XML) object and executing event handlers wrapped in Web Methods is much sexier... :) Besides, it makes AJAXifying your pages at a later stage MUCH easier, because you can leave 99.9% of your code in tact and only hook a few client-side event handlers onto the relevant elements of the page... AKA graceful degradation.
 
Last edited:
I'm not defending ****. I'm just saying that you're a narrow-minded moron if you think you can apply .NET to all instances and applications brought to your desk.

Arguing it's better "at forcing separation of concerns", then I suggest you switch over to Ruby instead since THAT is the best if your concern is "forcing separation of concerns"

Clients don't see your code or how neatly it's laid out or how you commented it

They care about speed, ease of use, expandability and most importantly: cost effectiveness.

Go ahead, take 6 months in coding the perfect little web app. I can do it in a 1/3 of the time at half your budget with several different "best" technologies. Applying JS / .NET / Delphi / PHP / Classic ASP where and when needed to get the job done. Simpler. Faster and without the "reams of ****" other n00b programmers leave. Hell, even comment everything.

If a client wants the **** done in PHP I don't start "schooling" them in how .NET is better or that Ruby is best so "other programmers" can work on it if need be and understand it. If they want things done in Classic ASP, I don't snub my nose at them and act all superior as if looking down on them for being retarded. I do it.

I apply the programming to the solution they're looking, and willing to pay, for. EOL
 
AcidRaZor said:
I'm not defending ****. I'm just saying that you're a narrow-minded moron if you think you can apply .NET to all instances and applications brought to your desk.

Arguing it's better "at forcing separation of concerns", then I suggest you switch over to Ruby instead since THAT is the best if your concern is "forcing separation of concerns"

Clients don't see your code or how neatly it's laid out or how you commented it

They care about speed, ease of use, expandability and most importantly: cost effectiveness.

Go ahead, take 6 months in coding the perfect little web app. I can do it in a 1/3 of the time at half your budget with several different "best" technologies. Applying JS / .NET / Delphi / PHP / Classic ASP where and when needed to get the job done. Simpler. Faster and without the "reams of ****" other n00b programmers leave. Hell, even comment everything.

If a client wants the **** done in PHP I don't start "schooling" them in how .NET is better or that Ruby is best so "other programmers" can work on it if need be and understand it. If they want things done in Classic ASP, I don't snub my nose at them and act all superior as if looking down on them for being retarded. I do it.

I apply the programming to the solution they're looking, and willing to pay, for. EOL
Click to expand...

I'd do a website in any solution except for two - Classic ASP and static HTML (unless the static HTML was just a template). I dont believe it is worth my client's money to pay me to develop a classic ASP page. If they asked me to do classic ASP and nothing else, I would tell them its a waste of money and offer alternatives. This doesnt mean that .Net is the only alternative, but its a better alternative to classic ASP. Classic ASP has security problems, it is no longer maintained, it is not scalable, it is difficult to maintain. Clients dont see my code, true, but 99% of projects require maintenance, which is MUCH easier in .Net. Maintenance in classic ASP is crap.

Really, the zeal with which you defend such a POS is frightening. What next, is source control a bad idea?

EDIT: The technologies you use for a project have little to do with how long it will take to develop, although I'd argue classic ASP might make development take longer because its more difficult to test and debug. So, you're making a strawman by saying our perfect little web apps would take 6 months to write. They take however long they take to write, depends on the scope of the project, not the technology.
 
James said:
That would be like saying CVS has its place on this earth too... classic ASP should make like IE6 and die!!!
Click to expand...

At a company I worked for in the UK, they used VSS6 and classic ASP, with terrible architecture including inline SQL and massive pages that did everything. I still have nightmares about VSS6 (strokes his SVN and tells it he loves it).

What part of Wimblefontein do you live in? I lived there, and Tooting.
 
Ancalagon said:
At a company I worked for in the UK, they used VSS6 and classic ASP, with terrible architecture including inline SQL and massive pages that did everything. I still have nightmares about VSS6 (strokes his SVN and tells it he loves it).

What part of Wimblefontein do you live in? I lived there, and Tooting.
Click to expand...

I have my nightmares about the company I am with when they used CVS (stokes SVN and tells it he loves it... although we use Webistrano so no more ugly merging and the like). I am halfway between Wimbledon and Colliers Wood on Haydons Rd, not sure if you know it?
 
Yeah I know Haydon's road. I lived in Russell Road for some time, and also on Hartfield Road which is close to the Morrisons. Ha ha, brings back memories.
 
Classic ASP Programming Job Available

Hi guys,

A company in Sandton is looking for an experienced Classic ASP programmer. Salary is negotiable.

If you're interested email your CV to [email protected] or Johnny on 082 853 3883.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X