|
My impression from reading, and thinking about, what you have listed as negative points leads me to the conclusion that although you may be using ASP.NET professionally, you are not really using it effectively. There was not a single point in your explanation that could not be changed or used in a different way. That is why ASP.NET is so perfect for web development - it gives you the means to work at any level within an application - from the page as a single logicial entity right up to the bytes that are sent back and forth.
If you don't want javascript links then don't use postbacks on links. That is an application design issue not a framework one. It is down to you as the developer to implement user interface standards in your applications. Javascript links should only be used where it is logical to use them (for example, a calandar).
Unweildly page state? Then use common sense when deciding what state actually needs to be transfered. Ususually it is very little - 90% plus of the applications I've released over the past six years don't transfer any. It's a design decision you need to make when planning the application.
Regarding X/HTML and its relationship with the framework, you have to allow for this if you want an OO approach to web development. In my opinion OO is perfectly suited for web development rather than at odds with it - everything from the client end up is logically repsentable as objects. By giving us the ability to represent them the framework lets us cleanly code for and extend them as logical objects, rather than the procedural mess that we have had previously (or the limitations that the CF component model gives us). Having to thnk a bit harder when working with it is a small tradeoff for the potential it grants you.
Javascript is not a requirement for ASP.NET applications. It makes them considerably easier to develop, without doubt, but there is nothing stopping you from using other methods. This is probably even easier to do if you have come from or continue to build applications with other technologies.
Events on the server side are events. Events on the client side are triggers for events on the server side. With regards to firing events in an odd sequence that loses state, you are either listening for the wrong events or you are doing something wrong if you are handling state yourself.
Themes in ASP.NET are and always will be just a layman's addon for web design. They were put in to satisfy the considerable number of developers who don't know, or want to know, how to do things any better. We don't have to use them (I don't, and it sounds like you don't either).
You mention "they could have very easily built a web based technology which was built around the DOM like winforms is built around Win32", but I can't see the difference between the ASP.NET model and the WinForm model? They both approach their end targets in the same fashion.
Ðavid Wulff
Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
"If some individuals commit an act that is contrary to what their religion tells them to do, then the religion isn't violent... the individuals are." - espeir.
|
|
|
|
|
David Wulff wrote: My impression from reading, and thinking about, what you have listed as negative points leads me to the conclusion that although you may be using ASP.NET professionally, you are not really using it effectively
I can effectively use a wrench to hammer in a nail to hang a picture of my son. that doesnt mean that the wrench is a good implementation of a hammer. thats all I was (albeit poorly) trying to say.
David Wulff wrote: You mention "they could have very easily built a web based technology which was built around the DOM like winforms is built around Win32", but I can't see the difference between the ASP.NET model and the WinForm model?
I dont see how System.Web.UI.Page was built around the DOM[^]. System.Web.UI.Page uses xml fragments to "render" "what" it is to a document instead of "being" an html document.
I'm not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking (I try to stay silent on my opinions because I know this is a "religious" like topic, and folks have passionate feelings about it, which I'm not trying to change). I tend to go on rants about one thing or another (which is kind of what I did), but the bottom line is, I think they did a bad job at defining how how dynamic html works, and trying to make a document into something its not... which is a good asynchronous client server platform. an embeddable activeX or applet IMO is the better solution to what they're trying to get folks to do with html.
asp.nets strength is not in its implementation of the dom. its not in its compatibility with other technologies (though it is pretty good in some aspects). its strength is in being able to make people money. its a "system" that allows people to do large scale "web apps" quickly and consistently. like anything else you can do it the best it will allow you to do it, or you can do it poorly (http://usa.asus.com for instance). it pays my bills. that doesnt mean that I think they did as good a job at designing it as they did with their win32 implementation. in the end they could have done something that looks and feels just like what we have now, but they didnt, and they won't, and thats just the way it is.
if I was a highly paid architect, designing a web technology, I'd have started off with something that looked like an XmlDocument, and gone from there. made it real easy to change out a node, which would allow for additions and deletions of "controls" just like windows forms do, and when the page was sent out, all it would need to do was deserialize itself using normal xml serialization, which would end up being an html page. I would have called "events" operations, and sent that info as get parameters instead of post backs. I wouldnt have provided a bloated state system that a lot of folks abuse. and in the end, I'm sure I'd have designed something that nobody but myself would have used.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: It seems Microsoft's shadow is often behind these "innocent" surveys...
Really? I love a good conspiracy theory. Care to fill me in...?
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Jim Jim wrote: The truth is that Javascript was not developed by Microsoft, nor was AJAX, PHP and many more
interesting technologies.
The fact is that M$ did develop AJAX, or at least long before XMLHTTP was called AJAX it was developed to allow the exchange team to build Outlook Web Access.
I hate this type of discussion where fanatics let loose non sensical dribble instead of discussing the merits on fact of a particular technology or issue. In any case as a developer of solutions to my clients I don't give a rats ass who developed what technology, in the end if it is going to be better for me to use that technology, for whatever reason then that is what I will do.
Makes me think of religious fanatics. No matter what the issue, they will strap a whole bunch of explosives on their bodies and blow themselves up rather than listen to and discuss different views. 
-----------------------------------
Just another rocket scientist, NOT!
|
|
|
|
|
mwdiablo wrote: I hate this type of discussion where fanatics...
Come on man! this is only a sane discussion forum, it was only my opinion.
mwdiablo wrote: Makes me think of religious fanatics.
Are you ok? Your comments are a bit exaggerated.. This has nothing to do with religion. (...I'm agnostic  ).
mwdiablo wrote: they will strap a whole bunch of explosives on their bodies and blow themselves up rather than listen
??? ...
mwdiablo wrote: Just another rocket scientist, NOT!
Seriously, just quiet yourself. Don't waste your breath, using big words needlessly makes you seem stupider, do yourself a huge favor and please make an appointment with a psychiatrist! 
|
|
|
|
|
I use Firefox and NoScripts Plugin on SuSe 10.1, and give permissions to sites selectively when needed. The result is I not need a pop-up blocker, spam killer and anti-virus, without which I can't live on windows in wlan based internet network. I don't face any problems with JS disabled
http://www.priyank.in/
|
|
|
|
|
disabled by default, enable as needed...
the other day I had a popup and felt violated (sounds dirty eh)... someone had switched off the noscript, so I had to re-enable it.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: MadHatter ¢ wrote:
switched off the noscript
How?
dont know... probably my 3 yr old son playing on the computer.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
I set it up so JavaScript/JScript/ECMAScript can only do certain things. For instance, it doesn't get to "Raise or lower windows". Of course, that's only in Firefox. In IE, I allow it for every site, but again, only limited control (no scripting of ActiveX controls, whatever). Trusted Sites get a bit more control. For instance, I let GMail do pretty much anything so I get all the AJAX goodness. I think most browsers allow some extent of granularity in controlling JavaScript behavior.
Do most people even know what that means? Of course not. They either blithely leave it at the default settings, or they hear a news report about JavaScript evil and turn it all off.
Of course, all of us good web monkeys are gracefully degrading our web sites so the user doesn't need it enabled, right? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I stoppped using "Trusting" software a long time ago. Since I moved to firefox last year I have not had a single virus, adware, spyware, or trojan and I don't even have a virus scanner.
(No comments about the stupidity of not having a virus scanner; there are logical reasons beyond the comprehension of most)
"Until the day of his death, no man can be sure of his courage" -- Jean Anouilh
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: (No comments about the stupidity of not having a virus scanner; there are logical reasons beyond the comprehension of most)
Like what?
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I actually have Clam. When I develop I don't like my memory being scanned as it seems to slow me down. Plus I just don't like the way McAfee products attempt to control my machine and install themselves so thoroughly destroying performance that it is like a virus itself.
"Until the day of his death, no man can be sure of his courage" -- Jean Anouilh
|
|
|
|
|
Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote: McAfee products attempt to control my machine and install themselves so thoroughly destroying performance that it is like a virus itself.
Grim (aka Toby) MCDBA, MCSD, MCP+SB
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue IS NOT NULL
GO
(0 row(s) affected)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agree, I guess that's one of the reasons 78% (so far) has JS enabled.
Often JS is used in the menu, and how to browse a website without that menu. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
A matter of principle if you will
But ECMAScript is OK.
My programming blahblahblah blog. If you ever find anything useful here, please let me know to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of the reasons for which I switched over to tea.
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, I like bali better...
I have javascript enabled all the time, just need to run something like windows defender to prevent any website from installing spyware through javascript.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no 100% security. If you are that paranoic you better cut off your internet connection because you never know what will attack you through any tcp/ip port, crashing entirely your firewall and hacking your computer. You should scrap your email client as well and start telnetting to your server to read your mails using the console - this is really secure you know.
No Firewall is 100% safe, no antivirus software is 100% safe and crippling your browser because of paranoia won't help you that much - there are other alternative ways of hacking into your computer.
Regards,
Nikolay
|
|
|
|
|
Nikolay,
This applies to normal human life as well. There can not be a hundred per cent perfection. There is always a scope for improvement and development. And this applies to Security Components like AVs and Firewall software too.
nsimeonov wrote: If you are that paranoic you better cut off your internet connection because you never know what will attack you through any tcp/ip port, crashing entirely your firewall and hacking your computer. You should scrap your email client as well and start telnetting to your server to read your mails using the console - this is really secure you know.
Even though, you totally put yourself in a closed shell, there can just another loophole. Insert a CD or a Floppy in the system with a virus infection and the viruses will play haywire on your system. With the perspective of 'security cut down accesspoints', now, you should cut off access to Floppy/CD too. ;P
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar
Personal Homepage
namespace LavanyaDeepak
Personal Weblog
The World of Deepak and Lavanya
ViewPoint 24x7
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
