3 ms·
As far as I know, Microsoft's ASP.NET was kind of a failure. It produced Frontpage-grade (e.g. dirty) html. It did the wrong thing by default and didn't help mu
by guard-of-terra 14y ago
As far as I know, Microsoft's ASP.NET was kind of a failure. It produced Frontpage-grade (e.g. dirty) html. It did the wrong thing by default and didn't help much with the right thing.
It also brought in some clueless people who had no idea how HTTP, HTML and JS work, with questions like "why my button.hover event does not work" (this was pre-ajax, the event code was on the server and had no ways of knowing the user is hovering over the button).
Maybe it was OK for CRUD and internal applications but not for ordinary websites or sophisticated web apps.
.Net MVC is seen as a success: clean HTML, predictable things under the hood, jquery.
- josteink 14y ago> Microsoft's ASP.NET was kind of a failure. Eventually, yes. Which I addressed. But prior to the whole Web 2.0-thing, it was actually pretty successful by lots of means. I'm not saying ASP.NET MVC is superior in most respects. There's no doubt about that, but it was clearly a late-started initiative which should have started much earlier. ASP.NET already had lost its respect and was a waning star by the time they got the first version out the door. These days it's actually fairly pleasant to work with. The only thing I can say I really dislike about it is that you can still find the traces of all the old ASP.NET warts there, if you go beneath the hood. Edit: Thanks for being the only one replying to the actual topic at hand, as opposed to doing inane discussions about what "real metal" is these days. And that's coming from someone with a degree in electrical engineering and design of digital electrical circuitry.