4 ms·
CORE. It's not much different than regular ASP.NET. However they both are very different from Classic ASP.NET
by romanovcode 10y ago
CORE. It's not much different than regular ASP.NET. However they both are very different from Classic ASP.NET
- chadgeidel 10y agoI've been writing ASP.NET since 2004 (and classic ASP using VBScript before that) and I'm not sure what distinguishes "regular ASP.NET" from "Classic ASP.NET". I hear this term occasionally - what exactly do folks think of when they say "Classic ASP.NET"? WebForms? Pre-Razor view engine?
- mattmanser 10y agoYeah, pretty much. Regular = MVC/WebAPI Classic/Old/Shit = Webforms
- cptskippy 10y agoI was editing some Classic ASP code the other day and had a chuckle because it very much reminded me of Razor templating I worked on a day before.
- jsingleton 10y agoClassic ASP with JScript always reminds me of node. How things cycle back around...
- romanovcode 10y agorequire('foo'); reminds me of include('foo.php'); as well.
- richardwhiuk 10y agoYeah, I tend to think of ASP as being similar to PHP 4
- mattmanser 10y agoThat's what happens if you don't use a model and some sensible HtmlHelper extensions. Generally you can easily write razor with very little code in it, some ifs and foreachs is usually about all you need.
- cptskippy 10y agoI think you misunderstand, I wasn't implying that Razor is messy. Well written Classic ASP is just as clean with most of the code existing outside of the page in SSIs. It either case it comes down to discipline.