3 ms·

I'm pretty sure he meant ASP Classic. In any case ASP.NET a.k.a. ASP.NET Core is one of the best looking frameworks right now.

nwah1 10y ago
Yep, it is open source, cross-platform, with a fantastic MVC framework and an elegant language (C#). Visual Studio is of course proprietary and windows-only, but it isn't necessary to use. Although you'd be a fool not to use it.
- skrowl 10y ago
  ASP.NET Core 1 (formerly ASP.NET 5.0) development works great in Visual Studio Code https://code.visualstudio.com/ https://code.visualstudio.com/, which is FOSS (MIT license) https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/ https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/ and works on Linux and OS X as well as Windows. A lot of people don't realize that Visual Studio Code is, in fact, it's own product and not a version of full Visual Studio.
- romanovcode 10y ago
  You should check out Project Rider[0]. [0] https://blog.jetbrains.com/dotnet/2016/01/13/project-rider-a-csharp-ide/ https://blog.jetbrains.com/dotnet/2016/01/13/project-rider-a...
etblg 10y ago
I think he meant the original ASP.NET -- webforms. That version basically was windows forms but on the web in a bizarre way. Also it's poopy doodoo and I don't recommend using it (webforms I mean, not the modern ASP.NET)
ashmud 10y ago
I wonder if that's the case (what was meant). When I first worked with ASP.NET 1.1, getting it to work (feature-level) with Opera often required forgoing most of the "managed" control properties and using CSS/JS directly. The backend .NET code was much more of a joy to work with than Classic ASP, but the managed ASP.NET frontend portion, not as much.
- josteink 10y ago
  This is the answer. Asp.net 1.1 was mostly designed for "drag'n'drop" pixel aligned "form" layouts. Optimised for VB6 devs. Definitely not webby. It wasn't until Microsoft started with asp.net MVC that asp.net finally started going somewhere properly. And that was ironically much closer to classic asp and "real" web programming than the initial versions of asp.net ever was.

nwah1 10y ago

Yep, it is open source, cross-platform, with a fantastic MVC framework and an elegant language (C#). Visual Studio is of course proprietary and windows-only, but it isn't necessary to use. Although you'd be a fool not to use it.

skrowl 10y ago
ASP.NET Core 1 (formerly ASP.NET 5.0) development works great in Visual Studio Code https://code.visualstudio.com/ https://code.visualstudio.com/, which is FOSS (MIT license) https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/ https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/ and works on Linux and OS X as well as Windows. A lot of people don't realize that Visual Studio Code is, in fact, it's own product and not a version of full Visual Studio.
romanovcode 10y ago
You should check out Project Rider[0]. [0] https://blog.jetbrains.com/dotnet/2016/01/13/project-rider-a-csharp-ide/ https://blog.jetbrains.com/dotnet/2016/01/13/project-rider-a...

etblg 10y ago

I think he meant the original ASP.NET -- webforms. That version basically was windows forms but on the web in a bizarre way. Also it's poopy doodoo and I don't recommend using it (webforms I mean, not the modern ASP.NET)

ashmud 10y ago

I wonder if that's the case (what was meant). When I first worked with ASP.NET 1.1, getting it to work (feature-level) with Opera often required forgoing most of the "managed" control properties and using CSS/JS directly. The backend .NET code was much more of a joy to work with than Classic ASP, but the managed ASP.NET frontend portion, not as much.

josteink 10y ago
This is the answer. Asp.net 1.1 was mostly designed for "drag'n'drop" pixel aligned "form" layouts. Optimised for VB6 devs. Definitely not webby. It wasn't until Microsoft started with asp.net MVC that asp.net finally started going somewhere properly. And that was ironically much closer to classic asp and "real" web programming than the initial versions of asp.net ever was.