|
it
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft?
X-No-Archive
How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft? Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP? Blue Apricot Blue Apricot wrote:
> X-No-Archive http://groups.google.co.uk/group/microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general/browse_frm/thread/90b0d6180682c6e2/?hl=en#> How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft? > > Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP? > > Blue Apricot -- Mike Brind ASP will most likely be available for a very long time, but there will be no
further development of the platform. I think that you should start learning ASP.NET, not because ASP is getting cold, but for the benefits of ASP.NET. If you know ASP you have the benefit of knowing how to develop client-server applications, but not much more than that. There are some similarities between ASP and ASP.NET, but not very much considering how large the .NET framework is. Also you should try to learn the ASP.NET way of building pages and not stick to ASP practises. Guffa wrote:
> Also you should try to learn the ASP.NET way of building pages Why not?> and not stick to ASP practises. -- Mike Brind "Mike Brind" wrote: Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the executable code > > Why not? > in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be compiled and type safe. When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to follow and harder to maintain. Guffa wrote:
Show quote > "Mike Brind" wrote: This still occurs in ASP.Net, especially in databound objects:> >> >> Why not? >> > > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the > executable code in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be > compiled and type safe. > > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags > in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to > follow and harder to maintain. <asp:TextBox id="TextBox1" runat="server" Text='<%# DataView1(0)("au_lname") %>'> </asp:TextBox> -- Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the "NO SPAM"
Show quote
"Bob Barrows [MVP]" wrote: Yes, it can be done that way. It can also be done from code-behind, keeping > Guffa wrote: > > "Mike Brind" wrote: > > > >> > >> Why not? > >> > > > > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the > > executable code in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be > > compiled and type safe. > > > > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags > > in the markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to > > follow and harder to maintain. > > > This still occurs in ASP.Net, especially in databound objects: > <asp:TextBox id="TextBox1" runat="server" > Text='<%# DataView1(0)("au_lname") %>'> > </asp:TextBox> > > that mess out of the markup. A matter of taste, I give you. I like it clean, compiled, type checked, layered and having as few surprises as possible. Guffa wrote:
> "Mike Brind" wrote: Exactly what Bob said. And the bit about making it easier for> > > > > Why not? > > > > Because you can completely separate the HTML markup from the executable code > in ASP.NET. This means that all the code can be compiled and type safe. > > When converting from ASP to ASP.NET it's usual to see <%=...%> tags in the > markup (I have been there myself). Code like that is harder to follow and > harder to maintain. designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the thought of ploughing through all those server control tags, EditItemTemplates etc. For the vast majority of web applications, an OOP approach is overkill. A web page typically executes in about half a second or less, and then dies happily. You can use sessions, databases, text files or cookies to maintain some kind of state between pages, but web applications are not all about RAM-resident objects that might need to live for hours or days, undergoing all kinds of changes in state. Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be comfortable with Code Behind. And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted script-based page. No one except the sysadmin will notice in the vast majority of cases. Please note, I'm not talking about Yahoo or Ebay. I'm talking about the huge number of B2B sites that have niche audiences and page impression counts of less than 1 million a year, which probably make up about 70% of all web sites. Not that I have anything against ASP.NET. I'm learning it myself, but if ASP is ever dumped by Microsoft, PHP is an equally valid alternative for the kind of work I do. Time to clamber off the soap box now..... :-) -- Mike Brind > And the bit about making it easier for I didn't say that, and I don't believe that either. Microsoft seems to be > designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I > know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the > thought of ploughing through all those server control tags, > EditItemTemplates etc. coming with something that really could work in that respect, but so far I'd like to keep the designers far away from the code. Separating the code from the markup is for keeping the code easy to develop and maintain. > Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well That works fine when all the code is in the same file, but when half of the > crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than > those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be > comfortable with Code Behind. code is in the html and half of it is in code-behind, it gets worse... > And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an It's not for the speed but for the stability.> aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted > script-based page. I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream compared to script programming. It's so much easier to write stable and efficient code. "Guffa" <Gu***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message Well that's true. But HTML IS code. Designers shouldn't be let near itnews:F13AA50F-0E44-458A-9455-C452B0415183@microsoft.com... > > And the bit about making it easier for > > designers and coders to work on the same project? Every designer I > > know who has seen what VS produces has shrieked in horror at the > > thought of ploughing through all those server control tags, > > EditItemTemplates etc. > > I didn't say that, and I don't believe that either. Microsoft seems to be > coming with something that really could work in that respect, but so far I'd > like to keep the designers far away from the code. > either. > Separating the code from the markup is for keeping the code easy to There's nothing in ASP that prevents this either. For example I often seedevelop > and maintain. this:- <tr><td> <% '---- Large chunk of code delivering content of TD %> </td> That can be hard to read however the same is easy enough to do this way:- <tr><td><%=GetTDContent()%></td> > Not if good code contstruction principles are being applied. Concepts such> > Good programmers who are used to <%=...%> or <?php...?> don't find well > > crafted ASP or PHP files difficult to follow or maintain, any more than > > those who are used to Public Class Whatever ...End Class will be > > comfortable with Code Behind. > > That works fine when all the code is in the same file, but when half of the > code is in the html and half of it is in code-behind, it gets worse... > as cohesive modules which are as old as programming itself still apply. > > And the bit about code being compiled and type safe? So what? So an ASP applications of sufficient complexity where the above becomes true are> > aspx page might run a few microseconds faster than an interpreted > > script-based page. > > It's not for the speed but for the stability. > > I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to > ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream > compared to script programming. It's so much easier to write stable and > efficient code. being developed in combination with VB6. I've been developing in both ASP and .NET (not ASP.NET) for quite some time. I keep going back to ASP.NET thinking surely there must be a killer reason to use this stuff. So far I haven't found one. Anthony. Guffa wrote:
<snipped> > I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to ASP script is also compiled. This has been noted about a million times > ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream > compared to script programming. on these newsgroups, so it won't hurt to say it one more time: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=bytecode&num=20&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=mdkersey%40hal-pc.org&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.inetserver.*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=21&as_maxm=4&as_maxy=2006&safe=off On the first request for an ASP page, the ASP code is compiled to p-code, the p-code cached in IIS memory and executed. The cached p-code is (usually) used on subsequent page requests. Here's a post that contains a sample of the p-code (bytecode) to which ASP is compiled: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general/browse_thread/thread/c650b3e696935b13/85e373a57b655d3c?lnk=st&q=COMPILED+P-CODE+%22mdkersey%40hal-pc.org%22&rnum=1&hl=en#85e373a57b655d3c There's an explanation of the ASP compiling process in Appendix 3, "ASP Caching", of: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/technologies/iis/maintain/optimize/iis5tune.mspx#XSLTsection130121120120 "Michael D. Kersey" <mdker***@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=bytecode&num=20&scoring=r&hl=en&as_epq=mdkersey%40hal-pc.org&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.inetserver.*&as_usubject=&as_uauthors=&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=21&as_maxm=4&as_maxy=2006&safe=off
news:ey5xfBRZGHA.1196@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Guffa wrote: > <snipped> > > I've been developing applications in ASP for several years, and moved on to > > ASP.NET about two years ago. I find working with compiled code a dream > > compared to script programming. > > ASP script is also compiled. This has been noted about a million times > on these newsgroups, so it won't hurt to say it one more time: > >
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general/browse_thread/thread/c650b3e696935b13/85e373a57b655d3c?lnk=st&q=COMPILED+P-CODE+%22mdkersey%40hal-pc.org%22&rnum=1&hl=en#85e373a57b655d3c
> On the first request for an ASP page, the ASP code is compiled to > p-code, the p-code cached in IIS memory and executed. The cached p-code > is (usually) used on subsequent page requests. > > Here's a post that contains a sample of the p-code (bytecode) to which > ASP is compiled: > >
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/technologies/iis/maintain/optimize/iis5tune.mspx#XSLTsection130121120120
> There's an explanation of the ASP compiling process in Appendix 3, "ASP > Caching", of: > > Unfortunately the word 'compiled' is overloaded.It is true that the p-code for a parsed ASP pages is cached. However this p-code is still interpreted every time the page is executed. With ASP.NET the page is complied first to IL. However the IL is further compilied to native code and this native code is cached. Anthony. On 18 Apr 2006 20:52:15 -0700, "Blue Apricot" <blueapricot***@gmail.com> in <1145418735.421411.290***@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> wrote: >X-No-Archive Actually, the best advice I could offer would be to refactor it all in>How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft? > >Should I start learning ASP.NET? Is it hard if you already know ASP? > >Blue Apricot PHP over Apache using PostgreSQL. The performance is awesome as in ~superior to asp~, the conversion time is minimal, and the cost is nothing (FREE) but your time in order to see that I speak the ~truth~. --- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties and no guarantees either express or implied. Stefan Berglund So basically you are here to try and convert people. Why?
Show quote > Actually, the best advice I could offer would be to refactor it all in > PHP over Apache using PostgreSQL. The performance is awesome as in > ~superior to asp~, the conversion time is minimal, and the cost is > nothing (FREE) but your time in order to see that I speak the ~truth~. > How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft? Have you ever actually used Microsoft product support for anything exclusively ASP-related? I view ASP technology as something you can use for as long as you want to, or can. For example, let's say you have a 1988 Corolla. It is clearly no longer covered by Toyota's warranty, but you are free to drive it for as long as you want, as long as you can maintain it and that it continues to meet the oh-so-rigid safety standards in the US. When it becomes too expensive to maintain, you dump it. Similarly with ASP, even if some future version of Windows drops support for ASP (which I doubt), there is no reason to immediately move to that platform if you are using ASP and wish to continue to do so. However, my guess is that they will continue to support ASP for as long as they continue to ship IIS. Since they are not making any changes to that side of the codebase, I can't think of anything they would gain by ripping out the ASP support (except maybe save some lines of code, but we know that isn't a priority over at Microsoft). Especially because of the backlash from all of these customers who have deployed this technology and are using it perpetually... > Should I start learning ASP.NET? If you have the time to invest, sure, it's definitely an advantage to have it in your toolbox, especially in today's job market. And it is a much more comprehensive platform that will give you more benefits in the long run. In the short term, however, if you are on a tight deadline, I'm not sure that switching mid-stream is going to be a very good thing. > Is it hard if you already know ASP? My suggestion when learning ASP.NET is to forget everything you learned about ASP (aside from the peripheral stuff, which is still important, like HTML, JavaScript, CSS). The whole architecture really is different, even though the name remains similar and IIS is still processing the server-side stuff. A Well said really,
I would also like to add that I have dragged my feet on really learning ASP.net these past 4 years. I have worked with it and given up in the past. I knew enough to be dangerous. It was not until recently that I really understand it and have become very very good with it. All it took was 3 weeks, a lot of reading, and about 100 hours with visual studio.net. Most of the help I needed was on the web. I could kick myself for not spending the time to get familiar with things before now. There is some really cool stuff. That being said I still love classic asp and wil always use it I am sure. At least now though I don't feel like I am behind the times. I recently made an elaborate authentication control that works with formsauthentication and roles and its just so cool now that I understand enough to do things like that. Unlike classic ASP.NET ASP.NET is probably one of those things your will never know everything about. There is just so much, but that also makes it very exciting. In the classic ASP world there is only so much to learn and a lot of us in these newsgroups have it 99% covered. I will agree with Aaron.. dont give up on classic asp and I too think it will around as long as IIS as we know it is, but don't be afraid to spend some serious time with .NET when you have time. Once you become friends you'll be glad to took the time to get acquated. Show quote "Aaron Bertrand [SQL Server MVP]" <ten.xoc@dnartreb.noraa> wrote in message news:uPVCNXUZGHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> How long will Classic ASP be supported by Microsoft? > > Have you ever actually used Microsoft product support for anything > exclusively ASP-related? > > I view ASP technology as something you can use for as long as you want to, > or can. For example, let's say you have a 1988 Corolla. It is clearly no > longer covered by Toyota's warranty, but you are free to drive it for as > long as you want, as long as you can maintain it and that it continues to > meet the oh-so-rigid safety standards in the US. When it becomes too > expensive to maintain, you dump it. > > Similarly with ASP, even if some future version of Windows drops support > for ASP (which I doubt), there is no reason to immediately move to that > platform if you are using ASP and wish to continue to do so. > > However, my guess is that they will continue to support ASP for as long as > they continue to ship IIS. Since they are not making any changes to that > side of the codebase, I can't think of anything they would gain by ripping > out the ASP support (except maybe save some lines of code, but we know > that isn't a priority over at Microsoft). Especially because of the > backlash from all of these customers who have deployed this technology and > are using it perpetually... > >> Should I start learning ASP.NET? > > If you have the time to invest, sure, it's definitely an advantage to have > it in your toolbox, especially in today's job market. And it is a much > more comprehensive platform that will give you more benefits in the long > run. In the short term, however, if you are on a tight deadline, I'm not > sure that switching mid-stream is going to be a very good thing. > >> Is it hard if you already know ASP? > > My suggestion when learning ASP.NET is to forget everything you learned > about ASP (aside from the peripheral stuff, which is still important, like > HTML, JavaScript, CSS). The whole architecture really is different, even > though the name remains similar and IIS is still processing the > server-side stuff. > > A > > There's not a lot preventing classic ASP developers using tools like VB6 to> Unlike classic ASP.NET ASP.NET is probably one of those things your will > never know everything about. There is just so much, but that also makes it > very exciting. In the classic ASP world there is only so much to learn and a > lot of us in these newsgroups have it 99% covered. > access significant chunks of the functionality of the windows API that .NET exposes directly in the framework. It's this 'all in one tool box' approach which makes the learning it appear difficult. In reality we're not likely need all of it just as very few 'classic' applications use all aspects of windows API. Anthony.  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics