4 ms·
Assuming these are genuine and not the world's longest rhetorical questions: 1) There is nothing wrong with your approach. There is nothing that can be done us
by nswanberg 13y ago
Assuming these are genuine and not the world's longest rhetorical questions:
1) There is nothing wrong with your approach. There is nothing that can be done using ASP.NET MVC that cannot be done with the ASP.NET Webforms pattern (I'm not sure if there is a generic term for the single-file pattern that classic ASP, JSP, AOLServer, etc use). You are smart and working alone, and quite likely the innovations in your application will not be made in the way in which you concatenate strings to generate HTML.
2) Again, you are not missing anything by using your years of experience with KEdit and Rexx, except possibly a job working on internal HR applications at an insurance company. Intellisense and VWD are tools designed for programmers with a range of experience to be productive enough so as not to be a net loss for their team. I make websites with ASP.NET MVC and use Visual Studio to do it. Would I consider KEdit? Probably not--I lack your experience with KEdit, and when I want to deal exclusively with text I use Emacs. And why use intellisense? Your method of creating abstracts for the .NET class library is a great one, and one that a lot of people could learn from. But that is not reality in the everyday .NET development world. Intellisense allows those developers to navigate both the .NET libraries and their teammates' ad-hoc classes.
3) I'll pass--I didn't watch the video.
4) Almost certainly the text box was generated as an example. It's possible that most sites using javascript nowadays do so only because yet other sites use javascript. But where javascript is used well it is indispensable. Part of the original appeal of both Google Maps and Gmail was the pleasant user interface enabled with javascript. If your site is a means to an end and the users are willing to put a lot of effort into the result--say, as an extreme example, a form that takes some account information and literally gives the user money--there is little you could gain from javascript. But if you want to do what you can to make a user's experience a pleasant or even delightful one, javascript is frequently the best way to achieve that.
- graycat 13y agoMany thanks for your feedback and judgment. No, the questions are not just rhetorical and, instead, are fully real for me. Yes, so far, at least for my version 1.0 live site (soon, soon, soon!), it seems to me that my simple HTML and CSS without any JavaScript from me will provide a good enough 'user interface' with a good enough 'user experience'. One advantage of my approach: It's dirt simple for the user. Yes, the user interface of Google Maps is astounding, but I did have to download and enable a Firefox plug-in. I recently used Google Maps to find the house I grew up in, the house of my high school girlfriend, the house of my wife's family, my current house, etc. Amazing work. My Web site needs nothing like that. So, my site has nothing that pops up, pulls down, or jumps around. The Google home page was long very simple -- just type into a 'text box' and hit enter and get back some pages of links with some short descriptions. Now, of course, apparently each keystroke into the text box goes back to a Google server which does amazing things and updates the screen, sometimes once for each keystroke -- nice programming, timing, etc., but it will be a long time until my Web site needs such nice refinement.