3 ms·
+1 for this. We've been working in C#/ASP.Net for 7 years now, and we always stayed as far away from ASP.Net controls and Web Forms as possible. Some things we
by henrikschroder 16y ago
+1 for this. We've been working in C#/ASP.Net for 7 years now, and we always stayed as far away from ASP.Net controls and Web Forms as possible. Some things we liked such as master pages and making a class hierarchy for the pages to inherit, so we used that.
For the past two years we've been using our own light-weight MVC framework.
C# and IIS are very versatile technologies, you don't have to buy into the entire Microsoft tool chain to use it, you can use whatever parts you want.
- swilliams 16y agoThis is true, but it also reinforces the statement that WebForms suck. It was so broken, that you had to write your own framework to deal with it.
- henrikschroder 16y agoTo be fair, ASP.Net was a better technology than JSP, which were the main competitors back then. On top of ASP.Net, Microsoft built Web Forms, which is really bad when it comes to building large, scalable web applications. Unfortunately, Microsoft kinda stopped there, whereas the Java community continued and made Struts and Spring and whatever else they do now. And that highlights the other problem with using the Microsoft stack: There's no community around popular frameworks, the absolute majority use only what comes out of Redmond, and if nothing comes, then they're just stuck. In the Java community, there were loads of MVC frameworks, people built it, and the popular ones flourished, and people could move on. In the .Net community, nothing really happened until Microsoft themselves made an MVC framework. So being on the Microsoft stack is more like a roller-coaster than a smooth progression, and that is a problem, because it's not very startup-friendly.