4 ms·
>If you are not willing to fix/adapt/improve the framework you are using, you better not be using ASP.NET also (try a google search on asp.net issues), of any f
by cooldeal 14y ago
>If you are not willing to fix/adapt/improve the framework you are using, you better not be using ASP.NET also (try a google search on asp.net issues), of any framework at all. In fact, developing larger more complex software might not even be possible without adapting frameworks for your specific problems.
Huh what? Stack Overflow with it's extreme load works quite well with ASP.NET.
>try a google search on asp.net issues
Okay, I did, what I am supposed to be looking at?
- JonnieCache 14y agoThe point is, SO almost certainly aren't using vanilla ASP.net. Nobody can succeed for too long without maintaining and cultivating their stack.
- atonse 14y agoI don't know about Vanilla ASP.NET but they are pretty much using stock config'd IIS and Servers. So I would be very surprised if they weren't using stock ASP.NET (with their own filters, etc using public APIs I'm sure)
- JonnieCache 14y agoForgive me, I'm not an MS person, but is there no opportunity to augment/customise/replace/mix-and-match/etc the ASP.net components? From what I've read on http://highscalability.com http://highscalability.com and the like, they love to tweak.
- kmontrose 14y agoWe're on ASP.NET MVC4, a stock build. We've configured route registration a little bit specially* to speed up some common cases and we don't necessarily use every feature in the framework; but we're far from a proper fork. ASP.NET MVC performs well enough that we get more bang from focusing on our own code basically. *This amounts to registering our highest traffic routes _first_, and checking left-hand matches before Regex'ing (since we have a ton of "/foo/\d+/bar"-ish routes).