4 ms·

My beef with ASP.NET is that it makes it disturbingly easy to write code that doesn't scale well and then is ridiculously hard to scale after the fact. It real

My beef with ASP.NET is that it makes it disturbingly easy to write code that doesn't scale well and then is ridiculously hard to scale after the fact. It really is all about the initial design not the language. ASP.NET just makes it too easy to go with bad design and library choices, not to mention the tons of examples of bad design that newbies might accidentally follow at the beginning.

lwat 16y ago
My beef with ASP.NET is that it makes it disturbingly easy to write code that doesn't scale well and then is ridiculously hard to scale after the fact. Explain? Example? I don't see how this could possibly be true for .net but not for Rails or Python or PHP or whatever.
- arethuza 16y ago
  I think what noonespecial is probably getting at is that because .Net is usually written in Visual Studio a lot of people stick applications together in a RAD approach without giving much consideration for what is happening under the hood. Not all, of course, but probably a larger proportion that for platforms that don't have tools with RAD features like Visual Studio. WebForms in ASP.Net are pretty much an attempt to take the developer experience of Visual Basic and make it work on the web - arguably with mixed results. I really don't think there is anything wrong with .Net as a platform - but things like WebForms can be rather disturbing if not used with care.
  - lwat 16y ago
    The 'mixed results' you mention is no different from any other web platform on the planet.
vyrotek 16y ago
I'll have to agree with this... but its worth noting that there's a difference between ASP.Net WebForm and ASP.Net MVC. I'm a huge fan of .Net (in fact my startup runs on it) but I absolutely hate the 'magic' that WebForms does for you.
- noblethrasher 16y ago
  Of course, you don't have to use the magic of WebForms (as I'm sure you know). You can use it just like 'MVC' where the code-behind class definition is the controller. In fact, now that I think about it, the big difference is that the controller-view mapping is static in WebForms (with code-behind) and dynamic in MVC (method loads a view).
- noonespecial 16y ago
  Too true. The debacles I've been involved in that caused me to post the above were all hastily constructed WebForm apps at their inception.
chaz 16y ago
Isn't this true of any language? ActiveRecord associations in Ruby on Rails are brilliant for getting code out the door, but the queries it produces along with complex lazy loading can make a database melt.

lwat 16y ago

My beef with ASP.NET is that it makes it disturbingly easy to write code that doesn't scale well and then is ridiculously hard to scale after the fact. Explain? Example? I don't see how this could possibly be true for .net but not for Rails or Python or PHP or whatever.

arethuza 16y ago
I think what noonespecial is probably getting at is that because .Net is usually written in Visual Studio a lot of people stick applications together in a RAD approach without giving much consideration for what is happening under the hood. Not all, of course, but probably a larger proportion that for platforms that don't have tools with RAD features like Visual Studio. WebForms in ASP.Net are pretty much an attempt to take the developer experience of Visual Basic and make it work on the web - arguably with mixed results. I really don't think there is anything wrong with .Net as a platform - but things like WebForms can be rather disturbing if not used with care.
- lwat 16y ago
  The 'mixed results' you mention is no different from any other web platform on the planet.

vyrotek 16y ago

I'll have to agree with this... but its worth noting that there's a difference between ASP.Net WebForm and ASP.Net MVC. I'm a huge fan of .Net (in fact my startup runs on it) but I absolutely hate the 'magic' that WebForms does for you.

noblethrasher 16y ago
Of course, you don't have to use the magic of WebForms (as I'm sure you know). You can use it just like 'MVC' where the code-behind class definition is the controller. In fact, now that I think about it, the big difference is that the controller-view mapping is static in WebForms (with code-behind) and dynamic in MVC (method loads a view).
noonespecial 16y ago
Too true. The debacles I've been involved in that caused me to post the above were all hastily constructed WebForm apps at their inception.

chaz 16y ago

Isn't this true of any language? ActiveRecord associations in Ruby on Rails are brilliant for getting code out the door, but the queries it produces along with complex lazy loading can make a database melt.