Saturday, March 31, 2012

Themes not working sometimes.

I am setting the src of a Iframe in the page load like this:
fraContent.Attributes.Item("src") = "Splash.aspx"
and sometimes the themes do not work. The page displays in the browser but
the themes are not applied. The <link ... is on the page when I look at the
soruce.
Any Ideas.
Thank you,
--
JerryHello Jerry,
I do not have your source code to test on directly. But here are some
suggestions that, I think, deserve your trial.
1. Does the "<link _" links to the correct theme page when the themes are
not applied? Please pay attention to the relative path. In my best guess,
the theme page cannot be loaded because the relative path to the page is
not correct.
2. Is the line fraContent.Attributes.Item("src") = "Splash.aspx" inside the
if statement: if (!Page.IsPostBack) { _ }?
If that, when the page post-back occurs, the line
fraContent.Attributes.Item("src") = "Splash.aspx" will not be executed in
the Page_Load event handler.
We can debug the site in Visual Studio, set a breakpoint on
fraContent.Attributes.Item("src") = "Splash.aspx" and see if it is executed
every time when we need to load the theme page.
3. When the theme page cannot be loaded, what is the browser? As far as I
know, some browsers do not support html tags very well.
By the way, since ASP.NET 2.0, a new feature "Theme & Skin" has been
supported by ASP.NET. If your theme pages only contain style information,
I'd suggest using ASP.NET Theme, which is much easier to accomplish the
task. For more information about "Theme and Skin" in ASP.NET, please refer
to:
ASP.NET Themes and Skins Overview
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ykzx33wh.aspx
How to: Apply ASP.NET Themes Programmatically
http://www.15seconds.com/issue/040105.htm
Code in Style with ASP.NET Themes.
http://www.15seconds.com/issue/040105.htm
Hope it helps.
Regards,
Jialiang Ge (jialge@.online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
==========
For MSDN subscribers whose posts are left unanswered, please check this
document: http://blogs.msdn.com/msdnts/pages/postingAlias.aspx
Get notification to my posts through email? Please refer to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...ault.aspx#notif
ications. If you are using Outlook Express/Windows Mail, please make sure
you clear the check box "Tools/Options/Read: Get 300 headers at a time" to
see your reply promptly.
Note: The MSDN Managed Newsgroup support offering is for non-urgent issues
where an initial response from the community or a Microsoft Support
Engineer within 1 business day is acceptable. Please note that each follow
up response may take approximately 2 business days as the support
professional working with you may need further investigation to reach the
most efficient resolution. The offering is not appropriate for situations
that require urgent, real-time or phone-based interactions or complex
project analysis and dump analysis issues. Issues of this nature are best
handled working with a dedicated Microsoft Support Engineer by contacting
Microsoft Customer Support Services (CSS) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscript...t/default.aspx.
========================================
==========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Hello Jerry,
Sorry for the incorrect link to the article "How to: Apply ASP.NET Themes
Programmatically".
The link should be:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/tx35bd89.aspx
If you have any other concerns or need anything else, please feel free to
let me know.
Regards,
Jialiang Ge (jialge@.online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
Microsoft Online Community Support
========================================
=========
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader
so that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=========
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Jialiang,
Thank you for your reply. The problem only occurs SOME of the time so all
the links are about appying the themes and if the code was not correct the
themes would not be there ALL of the time not just SOME of the times.
Anyway.
I have fixed the problem. This does not explain why the problem occured in
the first place. I placed a system.threading.thread.sleep line in the
LoadComplete event of the page. this seemed like the same problem solved by
the waitForEvents in window forms.
Have you seen any of this kind of problem.
Thank you
--
Jerry
"Jialiang Ge [MSFT]" wrote:

> Hello Jerry,
> Sorry for the incorrect link to the article "How to: Apply ASP.NET Themes
> Programmatically".
> The link should be:
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/tx35bd89.aspx
> If you have any other concerns or need anything else, please feel free to
> let me know.
> Regards,
> Jialiang Ge (jialge@.online.microsoft.com, remove 'online.')
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> ========================================
=========
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader
> so that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> ========================================
=========
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
.
>

Themes vs css?

Hi;

I see the additional functionality that themes add. But it also seems to me
that if we use css instead of themes, then it's a lot easier for people to
change the look of our site as css is very well understood.

Any comments on how useful in practice the extra features of themes have been?

--
thanks - daveCSS files are usually part of a theme.
Rely on them as much as you wish.

--
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net

"David Thielen" <thielen@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:CCBFC3CA-87C4-4C69-A847-208227AF90FE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi;
> I see the additional functionality that themes add. But it also seems to
> me
> that if we use css instead of themes, then it's a lot easier for people to
> change the look of our site as css is very well understood.
> Any comments on how useful in practice the extra features of themes have
> been?
> --
> thanks - dave
Hi,

How is this case going? Please feel free to let me know if you have any
concern or questions.

Thanks & Regards,

Neil Ni
Microsoft Online Partner Support

Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security

When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.

================================================== ===
Business-Critical Phone Support (BCPS) provides you with technical phone
support at no charge during critical LAN outages or "business down"
situations. This benefit is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to all
Microsoft technology partners in the United States and Canada.

This and other support options are available here:

BCPS:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...erview/40010469

Others: https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...upportoverview/

If you are outside the United States, please visit our International
Support page:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...ernational.aspx.
================================================== ===

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Themes, Pages, and Master Pages

I am trying to understand some basic things about themes.
Why cannot I attach a theme to a master page?
When I define a CSS within a theme and then attach the theme to a page it
seems that I cannot use the CSS definitions directly on that page. Is this
correct? If so, why?
Thanks
Jayin the web.config in the <pages> tag add a styleSheetTheme attribute with th
e
name of your theme. If that isn't what you want to do, you can always
temporarily drop the CSS link directly into the master page for editing and
then remove it when done (unless of course you want it directly on that page
).
"MS News" wrote:

> I am trying to understand some basic things about themes.
> Why cannot I attach a theme to a master page?
> When I define a CSS within a theme and then attach the theme to a page it
> seems that I cannot use the CSS definitions directly on that page. Is thi
s
> correct? If so, why?
> Thanks
> Jay
>
>
I messed up and see my mistake. Everything works as expected and very
nicely.
Jay
"MS News" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eJWVBajMGHA.740@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to understand some basic things about themes.
> Why cannot I attach a theme to a master page?
> When I define a CSS within a theme and then attach the theme to a page it
> seems that I cannot use the CSS definitions directly on that page. Is
> this correct? If so, why?
> Thanks
> Jay
>
>

Themes, Pages, and Master Pages

I am trying to understand some basic things about themes.

Why cannot I attach a theme to a master page?

When I define a CSS within a theme and then attach the theme to a page it
seems that I cannot use the CSS definitions directly on that page. Is this
correct? If so, why?

Thanks

Jayin the web.config in the <pages> tag add a styleSheetTheme attribute with the
name of your theme. If that isn't what you want to do, you can always
temporarily drop the CSS link directly into the master page for editing and
then remove it when done (unless of course you want it directly on that page).

"MS News" wrote:

> I am trying to understand some basic things about themes.
> Why cannot I attach a theme to a master page?
> When I define a CSS within a theme and then attach the theme to a page it
> seems that I cannot use the CSS definitions directly on that page. Is this
> correct? If so, why?
> Thanks
> Jay
>
>
I messed up and see my mistake. Everything works as expected and very
nicely.

Jay

"MS News" <someone@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eJWVBajMGHA.740@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>I am trying to understand some basic things about themes.
> Why cannot I attach a theme to a master page?
> When I define a CSS within a theme and then attach the theme to a page it
> seems that I cannot use the CSS definitions directly on that page. Is
> this correct? If so, why?
> Thanks
> Jay

Themes vs css?

Hi;
I see the additional functionality that themes add. But it also seems to me
that if we use css instead of themes, then it's a lot easier for people to
change the look of our site as css is very well understood.
Any comments on how useful in practice the extra features of themes have bee
n?
thanks - daveCSS files are usually part of a theme.
Rely on them as much as you wish.
I hope this helps,
Steve C. Orr, MCSD, MVP
http://SteveOrr.net
"David Thielen" <thielen@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:CCBFC3CA-87C4-4C69-A847-208227AF90FE@.microsoft.com...
> Hi;
> I see the additional functionality that themes add. But it also seems to
> me
> that if we use css instead of themes, then it's a lot easier for people to
> change the look of our site as css is very well understood.
> Any comments on how useful in practice the extra features of themes have
> been?
> --
> thanks - dave
Hi,
How is this case going? Please feel free to let me know if you have any
concern or questions.
Thanks & Regards,
Neil Ni
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
========================================
=============
Business-Critical Phone Support (BCPS) provides you with technical phone
support at no charge during critical LAN outages or "business down"
situations. This benefit is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a w

to all
Microsoft technology partners in the United States and Canada.
This and other support options are available here:
BCPS:
https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...erview/40010469
Others: https://partner.microsoft.com/US/te...upportoverview/
If you are outside the United States, please visit our International
Support page:
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...rnational.aspx.
========================================
=============
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Themes/Skins

Does anybody know where to find list of all attributes I can set for each
Control in .skin file?
I've been searching for it whole afternoon without any luck.
Thanks,
Tomica GrilWe've got to drag each control into the IDE and use the properties window
and then go back and forth and back and forth. Nice huh?
<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=...38&z=17&l=0&m=h
"Qweertz" <qweertz@.net.hr> wrote in message
news:enu1q9$6g4$1@.news1.carnet.hr...
> Does anybody know where to find list of all attributes I can set for each
> Control in .skin file?
> I've been searching for it whole afternoon without any luck.
> Thanks,
> Tomica Gril
>
This isn't exactly what you asked for, but you can enable Intellisense for
the skin files.
http://www.ckcmoss.com/archives/18-...0.htm
l
I had to close and re-open the project - in addition to the original
instructions - to get it to stick, but there it is.
"You actually can add intellisense to any file in Visual Studio 2005
providing you have a schema. Just drop it in the ~\Xml\Schemas folder."
Good info from a comment on the same page, in case you miss it.
Oh yea -- that's the kind of wrong I like to be. Thanks for bringing this to
our attention.
<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=...38&z=17&l=0&m=h
"mank1327" <mcwadsworth@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:04806EE5-3E62-472D-B2D7-91ED80D3980A@.microsoft.com...
> This isn't exactly what you asked for, but you can enable Intellisense for
> the skin files.
> http://www.ckcmoss.com/archives/18-...0.h
tml
> I had to close and re-open the project - in addition to the original
> instructions - to get it to stick, but there it is.
> "You actually can add intellisense to any file in Visual Studio 2005
> providing you have a schema. Just drop it in the ~\Xml\Schemas folder."
> Good info from a comment on the same page, in case you miss it.
>
>
> We've got to drag each control into the IDE and use the properties window
> and then go back and forth and back and forth. Nice huh?
>
Yeah, I know that.
Intellisense is all I needed, but I didn't know that I can user it in skins
as well.
Thanks to both.

Themes/Skins

Does anybody know where to find list of all attributes I can set for each
Control in .skin file?
I've been searching for it whole afternoon without any luck.

Thanks,
Tomica GrilWe've got to drag each control into the IDE and use the properties window
and then go back and forth and back and forth. Nice huh?

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=...38&z=17&l=0&m=h
"Qweertz" <qweertz@.net.hrwrote in message
news:enu1q9$6g4$1@.news1.carnet.hr...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Does anybody know where to find list of all attributes I can set for each
Control in .skin file?
I've been searching for it whole afternoon without any luck.
>
Thanks,
Tomica Gril
>

This isn't exactly what you asked for, but you can enable Intellisense for
the skin files.

http://www.ckcmoss.com/archives/18-...ins-in-2.0.html
I had to close and re-open the project - in addition to the original
instructions - to get it to stick, but there it is.

"You actually can add intellisense to any file in Visual Studio 2005
providing you have a schema. Just drop it in the ~\Xml\Schemas folder."

Good info from a comment on the same page, in case you miss it.
Oh yea -- that's the kind of wrong I like to be. Thanks for bringing this to
our attention.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=...38&z=17&l=0&m=h
"mank1327" <mcwadsworth@.hotmail.comwrote in message
news:04806EE5-3E62-472D-B2D7-91ED80D3980A@.microsoft.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

This isn't exactly what you asked for, but you can enable Intellisense for
the skin files.
>
http://www.ckcmoss.com/archives/18-...ins-in-2.0.html
>
I had to close and re-open the project - in addition to the original
instructions - to get it to stick, but there it is.
>
"You actually can add intellisense to any file in Visual Studio 2005
providing you have a schema. Just drop it in the ~\Xml\Schemas folder."
>
Good info from a comment on the same page, in case you miss it.
>
>
>

We've got to drag each control into the IDE and use the properties window

Quote:

Originally Posted by

and then go back and forth and back and forth. Nice huh?
>

Yeah, I know that.
Intellisense is all I needed, but I didn't know that I can user it in skins
as well.
Thanks to both.

Themes, Skins, and Masters

Hi. I am having trouble grasping the concept of applying a consistent
theme to an ASP.net website. I didn't used to like ASP because it was
too hard to apply a theme from a common theme folder like I could do
easily in PHP, but now I see that it has some nicer theming features
and master files.
So I want to use web.config to switch which theme I'm using, and I
want to be able to have several themes. My understanding of themes is
that I can only define styling in them as I could with CSS, but I
can't define code for the header, footer, etc with them. And that's
where master files come in, right? I'd like to switch which set of
master files is in use as the theme changes. IE, I'd like to put
several master pages that match in looks but have different functions
in each theme's folder along with the skins. But I don't think that it
will automatically switch to those masters when the theme is switched
in web.config. Can I use a variable in the <%@dotnet.itags.org. Page
MasterPageFile="... part? Specifically, can I include Page.Theme into
the middle of a path, like:
<%@dotnet.itags.org. Page MasterPageFile="App_Themes/{Page.Theme}/m1.master" %>
I can't make the themes very varied if all I can edit is the skins and
they all have the same xHTML code.
Also, what is the difference between global themes in the /Themes/
directory and page themes in the /App_Themes/ directory?
So is this possible? Or am I thinking along the wrong lines to do such
a thing?
-Mike PIIBriefly, we use the Page_PreInit event handler to change Themes and
MasterPages noting K. Scott Allen has documented the most helpful
information regarding this topic at http://odetocode.com/ but if you want to
master ASP.NET you need to delve into the page life cycle and learn it well
as it is fundamental to this and related tasks.
When using MasterPages you will also need to learn how to reference controls
which can be and is somewhat convoluted when using the FindControl method.
Try to get the hang of writing public properties to avoid using FindControl
when possible.
<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
<mike@.learntoprogram.info> wrote in message
news:1178930483.643472.134670@.h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. I am having trouble grasping the concept of applying a consistent
> theme to an ASP.net website. I didn't used to like ASP because it was
> too hard to apply a theme from a common theme folder like I could do
> easily in PHP, but now I see that it has some nicer theming features
> and master files.
> So I want to use web.config to switch which theme I'm using, and I
> want to be able to have several themes. My understanding of themes is
> that I can only define styling in them as I could with CSS, but I
> can't define code for the header, footer, etc with them. And that's
> where master files come in, right? I'd like to switch which set of
> master files is in use as the theme changes. IE, I'd like to put
> several master pages that match in looks but have different functions
> in each theme's folder along with the skins. But I don't think that it
> will automatically switch to those masters when the theme is switched
> in web.config. Can I use a variable in the <%@. Page
> MasterPageFile="... part? Specifically, can I include Page.Theme into
> the middle of a path, like:
> <%@. Page MasterPageFile="App_Themes/{Page.Theme}/m1.master" %>
> I can't make the themes very varied if all I can edit is the skins and
> they all have the same xHTML code.
> Also, what is the difference between global themes in the /Themes/
> directory and page themes in the /App_Themes/ directory?
> So is this possible? Or am I thinking along the wrong lines to do such
> a thing?
> -Mike PII
>
On May 12, 5:00 pm, "clintonG" <nob...@.nowhere.com> wrote:
> Briefly, we use the Page_PreInit event handler to change Themes and
> MasterPages noting K. Scott Allen has documented the most helpful
> information regarding this topic athttp://odetocode.com/but if you want to
> master ASP.NET you need to delve into the page life cycle and learn it wel
l
> as it is fundamental to this and related tasks.
> When using MasterPages you will also need to learn how to reference contro
ls
> which can be and is somewhat convoluted when using the FindControl method.
> Try to get the hang of writing public properties to avoid using FindContro
l
> when possible.
> <%= Clinton Gallagher
> NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
> URLhttp://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
Thanks for your help. I finally got it down.
ASP.net is

.
-Mike PII

Themes/skins with multiple browsers

Hi,
We're developing an application that should render well on both IE and
Firefox and should be based on Themes. Does anyone have any good tips on how
to maintain different CSS-files for different browsers and still use themes?
How/where do you select the CSS to use as this is autogenerated?
Thanks,
MansoOn Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:45:02 -0800, Manso wrote:

> Does anyone have any good tips on how to maintain different CSS-files
> for different browsers and still use themes?
Yes, don't do it. There is (almost) no reason to maintain different CSS
files for different browsers. The one real exception here is NN4, but
using the @.import hack is common practice.
Unless you have a very complex design, you can design a site with only
minimal hacks to work on multiple browsers. You should just stay away from
features that are problematic.
It's very difficult to accurately sniff which browser is which, and serve
the correct CSS. You can't rely on browser agent strings, because many
people have their non-IE browsers configured to report that they are IE.

Themes/skins with multiple browsers

Hi,

We're developing an application that should render well on both IE and
Firefox and should be based on Themes. Does anyone have any good tips on how
to maintain different CSS-files for different browsers and still use themes?
How/where do you select the CSS to use as this is autogenerated?

Thanks,
MansoOn Wed, 29 Mar 2006 08:45:02 -0800, Manso wrote:

> Does anyone have any good tips on how to maintain different CSS-files
> for different browsers and still use themes?

Yes, don't do it. There is (almost) no reason to maintain different CSS
files for different browsers. The one real exception here is NN4, but
using the @.import hack is common practice.

Unless you have a very complex design, you can design a site with only
minimal hacks to work on multiple browsers. You should just stay away from
features that are problematic.

It's very difficult to accurately sniff which browser is which, and serve
the correct CSS. You can't rely on browser agent strings, because many
people have their non-IE browsers configured to report that they are IE.

Theming custom created WebParts in ASP.NET 2.0

I have created my own WebPart using code, it is not derived from a UserControl.
Inside this WebPart I create a Calendar Control and add it to the WebParts
Control collection.

Now I want to apply a theme to this Calendar that is inside my WebPart. How
do I do that? I have created a theme and added a definition for a calendar.
The theme is applied to a calendar that is not inside the WebPart, but it is
not applied to the one inside.Hi c_kimbell,

Welcome to MSDN newsgroup.
As for the custom WebPart with a Calendar inside it, is it possible that we
define a public property on the Custom webPart which represent the Theme of
the inside Calendar control? Then, we any one assign a new value for this
property, the nested calendar's Theme value will be changed accordingly.

In addition, for .NET 2.0 and VS.NET whidbey beta issues, I suggest you
also try posting in the following web forum:

http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/

since there are some other experienced members who may have some good ideas.

Thank you,

Steven Cheng
Microsoft Online Support

Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)
Thanks for suggesting the ASP.NET forums, I have posted there now as well.

Here are some more details on what I have tried;
1. On the webpart I have exposed the Calendar as a property with the name
FromCalendar.
2. I have added the following to the .skin file

<%@. Register Assembly="IMK.WebParts" Namespace="IMK.WebParts"
TagPrefix="IMK" %
<IMK:IMKDateWebPart runat="server">
<FromCalendar BackColor="#FFFFCC">
<SelectedDayStyle BackColor="#CCCCFF" Font-Bold="True" />
<TitleStyle BackColor="#990000" Font-Bold="True" Font-Size="9pt"
ForeColor="#FFFFCC" />
</FromCalendar>
</IMK:IMKDateWebPart
Am I on the right track?

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:

> Hi c_kimbell,
> Welcome to MSDN newsgroup.
> As for the custom WebPart with a Calendar inside it, is it possible that we
> define a public property on the Custom webPart which represent the Theme of
> the inside Calendar control? Then, we any one assign a new value for this
> property, the nested calendar's Theme value will be changed accordingly.
> In addition, for .NET 2.0 and VS.NET whidbey beta issues, I suggest you
> also try posting in the following web forum:
> http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/
> since there are some other experienced members who may have some good ideas.
> Thank you,
> Steven Cheng
> Microsoft Online Support
> Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.)
>
Hi c_kimbell,

Thanks for your followup.
As you mentioned that
=================

1. On the webpart I have exposed the Calendar as a property with the name
FromCalendar.
2. I have added the following to the .skin file

I'm not sure whether this will cause error since I haven't tested it.
However, IMO, I'd prefer expose a single string property on my custom web
control which represent the nested child calendar's Theme(or
stylesheettheme). Since the ASP.NET 2.0 's Theme are mostly for those
simple type properteis (such as string, int), I think just exposing a
single string type property will be much better). You can do the actual
Theme adjusting in the Property's Setter method.
How do you think ?

Steven Cheng
Microsoft Online Support

Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)
I get your point about using simple strings. One thing though, say you expose
a color, this can be specified using a name like 'Red' or it may be specified
using hex notation, like '#FFCC66'. The controls require a Color object, how
does one map between the different representations and the Color object. Are
there any utility classes I can use?

I have now done a bit more experimenting. If I declaratively add the webpart
to a webpartzone, then the theme is correctly applied. If I add the same
webpart to the zone using a catalog, the style is not applied. The catalog
I'm adding from is a custom created one, not one of the predefined types.

Any suggestions?

"Steven Cheng[MSFT]" wrote:

> Hi c_kimbell,
> Thanks for your followup.
> As you mentioned that
> =================
>
> 1. On the webpart I have exposed the Calendar as a property with the name
> FromCalendar.
> 2. I have added the following to the .skin file
> <%@. Register Assembly="IMK.WebParts" Namespace="IMK.WebParts"
> TagPrefix="IMK" %>
> <IMK:IMKDateWebPart runat="server">
> <FromCalendar BackColor="#FFFFCC">
> <SelectedDayStyle BackColor="#CCCCFF" Font-Bold="True" />
> <TitleStyle BackColor="#990000" Font-Bold="True" Font-Size="9pt"
> ForeColor="#FFFFCC" />
> </FromCalendar>
> </IMK:IMKDateWebPart>
> =======================
> I'm not sure whether this will cause error since I haven't tested it.
> However, IMO, I'd prefer expose a single string property on my custom web
> control which represent the nested child calendar's Theme(or
> stylesheettheme). Since the ASP.NET 2.0 's Theme are mostly for those
> simple type properteis (such as string, int), I think just exposing a
> single string type property will be much better). You can do the actual
> Theme adjusting in the Property's Setter method.
> How do you think ?
> Steven Cheng
> Microsoft Online Support
> Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
> (This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.)
>
Hi c_kimbell,

For those Color field, the ASP.NET runtime's ControlParser will help parse
the property value into the correct object instance. And for Color, there
is the ColorTranslator class which can be used from convert string color
value to System.Drawing.Color instance. For example:

string htmlColor = "Blue";
//or string htmlColor = "#3344ee";
// Translate htmlColor to a GDI+ Color structure.
Color myColor = ColorTranslator.FromHtml(htmlColor);

For the applying theme for custom created catalog's webpart, I'm not sure
whether this is ok. As far as I know, since the ASP.NET2.0 runtime apply
theme for controls in the page's PreInit event, so any change on Theme
after that event (for example in Page_load ..., post back event) will not
work in the first loading...

Thanks,

Steven Cheng
Microsoft Online Support

Get Secure! www.microsoft.com/security
(This posting is provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confers no
rights.)

Thems and Templets.

Hello to all,

I am learning to apply themes and css to web application.
I want to know are there any themes and temeplets awailable for download?

If you download the starter kits, or tutorial code, some of them employ themes and templates, you could use them as examples.

The link is here:

http://www.asp.net/default.aspx?tabindex=5&tabid=41

Theory : How to implement an afilliate program website.

I have a website, and I want that when someone comes from an affilliate and buy something in my site, automatically generate a comission to the affiliate.

I would like to know if anyone know any documents, articles or source code to study a little in order to implement this.

Just to say that I'm a ASP.NET newbie with few "navigation hours".

Thank you.regardless of asp.net, you can use several methodologies to incorporate affilliate tracking. The best one (in my opinion) would be to simply track the affilliate by passing around their value in the querystring (ie: mysite.com/page.aspx?aff=2343444)

Then you can look for this number -- say when a user submits a form to purchase an item.
OK. I'll avoid any discussion around more complex methods of handling the same functionality, and describe in terms of pages, session etc.

How about:

- Create an incoming page that can decode an incoming affiliate request.
e.g. http://www.mysite.com/affprogramme.aspx?affid=<insert id here>&sku=<product id here>
The page will:
- Set the session to the affiliate id, which is then recorded when items are placed in the cart.
- Redirect the incoming request to the appropriate product.

Then, when an order is placed, it's easy to pull a report based on affiliate purchases.

Be aware that this is open to abuse for click through payments.

Anyway, it's a start of a more refined solution.

Hope it helps,
Why not just pass the affiliate id in the querystring as opposed to keeping it in a session? Im asking because 90+% may not order, so why even look at that value until an order has been placed? (unless you want to track each page, even then why not just use the querystring.)

although I'm not that stingy with Sessions, imagine 50,000 users going to your site on a good month.

Either way both methods would work (just putting in my .02)
Thank you all for your "opinion" :

Question :
It is best to save the affiliate ID code in the cookie ?

Why ? Because if the user have been redirected to my page trough an affilliate link, and want to become later to buy something , he will type my direct address (www.mysite.com) without the affiliate link. I think I should know (remember) what affiliate have indicated my webpage.

What you think about this ?

Thank you.
Good point! But what if the user does not accept cookies?

hmmm... always something to think about.

I think the best way would be:

- Persist to cookie if user accepts cookie
- Use QueryString if not

if user does not accept cookies and goes back to the site by typing the url directly the affiliate would not get paid... hmmmm.
I should use both I think :

I should use the :
www.mysite.com/affiliates.aspx?affid=<insert id here
And use this affid to fill the cookie.

If the user don't accept cookies ... the affiliate don't win a comission ... sound right or not ?
Well, this could be a commercial issue.
What defines an affiliate 'sale'? Is it if a purchase is made from your site in the next session, 20 days, 30 days and so on.
This is what defines the use of cookies and the like.
The page will not sell products, will sell services.

Possible customers can bought the service now, today, next month or never. If he buy the service, until he's an active customer the "affiliate" will win comission of sale.

This is important to keep the affiliate information much time as possible.

What do you think ?
Technically, I think it's fine.
Commercially, I think that's a pretty good deal for your affiliates.

Cheers,
Commercially is a great deal for me too.
Imagine ... you will have a "free" comercial team.

Don't have problem paing 10% of comission to anyone that gives me a new customer (the rest of the profit is all mine). In this mode it is more simple to anunce my services. Just to say that the customer pay monthly for the service ... the affiliate will won the comission montly too.

Thank you all for your technical help.
Don't use affiliate.aspx?affiliateID=XXXX

If I find a link like that I'll manually go out of my way to simply type in the main URL into another window without the affiliate info.

However if it were something less obscure such as in.aspx?in=XXXX I don't know if it's an affiliate in link or simply a link exchange hit counter or a redirect so I'll just click and leave it.
Jake,

Thank you for you nice idea. I allways do the same but forget that detail.

Best regards,
also you could always:

1.) Create the link with the reseller Id in the page name (without having to create the page)..

ie: www.myDomain.com/res1233.aspx

Then create a custom handler to convert the res1233.aspx to an actual page (from the ASP.NET pipeline) while capturing the affiliate reference at the same time.

:-)
Although technically since you will be the owner of the affiliate program if people did what I do (just type in the base URL without affiliate code) it would benefit you as you wouldn't be paying out any commissions on those sales..

There are so many bugs in the template of "Time Track"

There are so many bugs in the template of "Time Track", an error occured while I want to try delete a project in the project list page.

Error meesage as follows:

Server Error in '/Sample' Application.

Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: 'Id' Key being added: 'Id'

Description:An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details:System.ArgumentException: Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: 'Id' Key being added: 'Id'

Source Error:

Line 44: Protected Sub ListAllProjects_RowDeleting(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As GridViewDeleteEventArgs) Handles ListAllProjects.RowDeletingLine 45:Line 46: e.Keys.Add("Id", ListAllProjects.Rows(e.RowIndex).Cells(0).Text)Line 47: Line 48: End Sub

Source File:c:\inetpub\wwwroot\Sample\TimeTracker\Project_List.aspx.vb Line:46

Stack Trace:

[ArgumentException: Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: 'Id' Key being added: 'Id'] System.Collections.Hashtable.Insert(Object key, Object nvalue, Boolean add) +2836739 System.Collections.Hashtable.Add(Object key, Object value) +11 System.Collections.Specialized.OrderedDictionary.Add(Object key, Object value) +49 Project_List_aspx.ListAllProjects_RowDeleting(Object sender, GridViewDeleteEventArgs e) in c:\inetpub\wwwroot\Sample\TimeTracker\Project_List.aspx.vb:46 System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView.OnRowDeleting(GridViewDeleteEventArgs e) +133 System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView.HandleDelete(GridViewRow row, Int32 rowIndex) +604 System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView.HandleEvent(EventArgs e, Boolean causesValidation, String validationGroup) +1155 System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +199 System.Web.UI.WebControls.GridView.System.Web.UI.IPostBackEventHandler.RaisePostBackEvent(String eventArgument) +7 System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(IPostBackEventHandler sourceControl, String eventArgument) +11 System.Web.UI.Page.RaisePostBackEvent(NameValueCollection postData) +174 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +5102

When you add a item to a HashTable you can't have the same key, in your case all items that will be added to your Hashtable will have the "Id" as a key, make sure the key value is unique.
I knew the database constraint. I just want to say the "Time Tracker" has many bugs. Because I have not change anything in the project list page and database object.

There can be only one page directive

There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time.

What resource have I exhausted if a remote client gets the following message?

"The page cannot be displayed
There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time. "You've exhausted IIS. If you're running Windows XP or Windows 2000 Professional, your IIS process can only handle 10 concurrent connections (at the same time). This is by design and you cannot change this, although with XP you can disable HTTP keep-alives in the properties of the
Web site. When you do this, a limit of 10 concurrent connections still exists, but IIS does not maintain connections for inactive users.

If more than ten connections are needed, you will need to upgrade to one of Microsoft's server platforms.

There has been an I/O Error: Error #2038 - The SaveAs method is configured to require a ro

The application is in NET 20 using vs.2005 and FLEX that was originally in C# which I converted to VB. This whole thing started because a client wanted upload progress indicator for file uploads. It seems to happen after the file is uploaded. How asp.net works is it will cache the file while uploading and then when the full file is uploaded it then seems to copy to the upload Directory. It is at this time that it tosses the error. In firefox it gives a bit more details.

Here is what happens. Select a file to upload, File uploads and on 100% the first error box appears:

There has been an I/O Error: Error #2038: File I/O Error. URL: http://faroutcomputers/Upload.axd?

Then you click okay and the second one shows up:

There has been an HTTP Error: status code 500

Oh and another interesting thing. If I upload with IE7 I get the two errors but the file uploads and is present in the upload directory. If I upload with firefox I get the same two errors but the file does not appear in the upload directory and isn't completed.

> I am running this application on Windows server 2003 enterprise.
> IIS 6

I found this entry in event viewer on windows 2003:

Event code: 3005

Event message: An unhandled exception has occurred.

Event time: 11/13/2007 6:05:01 PM

Event time (UTC): 11/13/2007 11:05:01 PM

Event ID: 8161cd1f609b436382ae30ae036145bc

Event sequence: 128

Event occurrence: 9

Event detail code: 0

Application information:

Application domain: /LM/W3SVC/1148271820/Root/YoyoStudiosUploader2-3-128394676961048560

Trust level: Full

Application Virtual Path: /YoyoStudiosUploader2

Application Path: C:\CommercialWebsites\YoyoStudiosUploader2\

Machine name: WEBSLAVE2

Process information:

Process ID: 668

Process name: aspnet_wp.exe

Account name: WEBSLAVE2\ASPNET

Exception information:

Exception type: HttpException

Exception message: The SaveAs method is configured to require a rooted path, and the path 'Testing.avi' is not rooted.

Request information:

Request URL: http://faroutcomputers.dyndns.biz:8083/YoyoStudiosUploader2/Upload.axd

Request path: /YoyoStudiosUploader2/Upload.axd

User host address: 192.168.1.14

User:

Is authenticated: False

Authentication Type:

Thread account name: WEBSLAVE2\ASPNET

Thread information:

Thread ID: 1

Thread account name: WEBSLAVE2\ASPNET

Is impersonating: False

Stack trace: at System.Web.HttpPostedFile.SaveAs(String filename)

at Upload.ProcessRequest(HttpContext context) in C:\CommercialWebsites\YoyoStudiosUploader2\App_Code\Upload.vb:line 84

at System.Web.HttpApplication.CallHandlerExecutionStep.System.Web.HttpApplication.IExecutionStep.Execute()

at System.Web.HttpApplication.ExecuteStep(IExecutionStep step, Boolean& completedSynchronously)

Anyone know why this is happening?

Can you post some of the code where the error is occurring?

Hi,

Based on my understanding, when you use the FileUpload control to upload the file in your asp.net application, you get the error message above. If I have misunderstood you, please feel free to let me know.

Base on the exception message, the problem is that the HttpPostedFile.SaveAs method doesn't accept the file path that you passed.

To better understand your issue, could you please confirm the following information:

Please make sure that the path we pass is correct. We can insert the breakpoint to check.

Okay the application works FINE in IE.

Here is what happens with FIREFOX.
Select a file to upload, File uploads and on 100% the first error box appears:
There has been an I/O Error: Error #2038: File I/O Error. URL: http://faroutcomputers/Upload.axd?
Then you click okay and the second one shows up:
There has been an HTTP Error: status code 500

THIS ERROR IS SHOWN IN THE WINDOWS 2003 Event VIewer.
Exception information:
Exception type: HttpException
Exception message: The SaveAs method is configured to require a rooted path, and the path 'test.mp3' is not rooted.

Anyone know why I get an error in Firefox and IE works like a charm?

Session("FtpFolder") has a value of"C:\CommercialWebsites\mbelcher\"

and this is also shown in the trace info as being the vlaue of the session variable. IE works no issues but Firefox says no.... also Safari on a mac has the same errors as firefox.

CODE BELOW:

Imports Microsoft.VisualBasic

Imports System

Imports System.Data

Imports System.Configuration

Imports System.Web

Imports System.Web.Security

Imports System.Web.UI

Imports System.Web.UI.WebControls

Imports System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebParts

Imports System.Web.UI.HtmlControls

Imports System.IO

Public Class Upload

Implements IHttpHandler

Implements IRequiresSessionState

Public ReadOnly Property isReusable() As Boolean _

Implements IHttpHandler.IsReusable

Get

Return True

End Get

End Property

Public Sub Upload()

End Sub

Public Sub ProcessRequest(ByVal context As HttpContext) _

Implements IHttpHandler.ProcessRequest

If context.Request.Files.Count > 0 Then

' get the applications path

Dim tempFile As String = context.Request.PhysicalApplicationPath

Dim j As Int16

' get the current file

Dim uploadFile As HttpPostedFile = context.Request.Files(0)

' if there was a file uploded

If uploadFile.ContentLength > 0 Then

' save the file to the upload directory

Dim strDirectory As String = HttpContext.Current.Session("FtpFolder")

strDirectory = HttpContext.Current.Session("FtpFolder")

uploadFile.SaveAs(String.Format("{0}{1}", strDirectory, uploadFile.FileName))

' HttpPostedFile has an InputStream also. You can pass this to

' a function, or business logic. You can save it a database:

'byte[] fileData = new byte[uploadFile.ContentLength];

'uploadFile.InputStream.Write(fileData, 0, fileData.Length);

' save byte array into database.

' something I do is extract files from a zip file by passing

' the inputStream to a function that uses SharpZipLib found here:

'http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SharpZipLib/

' and then save the files to disk.

End If

'Next

End If

' Used as a fix for a bug in mac flash player that makes the

' onComplete event not fire

HttpContext.Current.Response.Write(" ")

End Sub

End Class

Okay the application works FINE in IE.

Anyone know why I get an error in Firefox and IE works like a charm?

Session("FtpFolder") has a value of"C:\CommercialWebsites\mbelcher\"

and this is also shown in the trace info as being the vlaue of the session variable. IE works no issues but Firefox says no.... also Safari on a mac has the same errors as firefox.

CODE BELOW:

Imports Microsoft.VisualBasicImports SystemImports System.DataImports System.ConfigurationImports System.WebImports System.Web.SecurityImports System.Web.UIImports System.Web.UI.WebControlsImports System.Web.UI.WebControls.WebPartsImports System.Web.UI.HtmlControlsImports System.IOPublic Class UploadImplements IHttpHandlerImplements IRequiresSessionStatePublic ReadOnly Property isReusable()As Boolean _Implements IHttpHandler.IsReusableGet Return True End Get End Property Public Sub Upload()End Sub Public Sub ProcessRequest(ByVal contextAs HttpContext) _Implements IHttpHandler.ProcessRequestIf context.Request.Files.Count > 0Then' get the applications pathDim tempFileAs String = context.Request.PhysicalApplicationPathDim jAs Int16' get the current fileDim uploadFileAs HttpPostedFile = context.Request.Files(0)' if there was a file uplodedIf uploadFile.ContentLength > 0Then' save the file to the upload directoryDim strDirectoryAs String = HttpContext.Current.Session("FtpFolder") strDirectory = HttpContext.Current.Session("FtpFolder") uploadFile.SaveAs(String.Format("{0}{1}", strDirectory, uploadFile.FileName))' HttpPostedFile has an InputStream also. You can pass this to ' a function, or business logic. You can save it a database: 'byte[] fileData = new byte[uploadFile.ContentLength]; 'uploadFile.InputStream.Write(fileData, 0, fileData.Length); ' save byte array into database. ' something I do is extract files from a zip file by passing ' the inputStream to a function that uses SharpZipLib found here: ' http://www.icsharpcode.net/OpenSource/SharpZipLib/ ' and then save the files to disk.End If'NextEnd If' Used as a fix for a bug in mac flash player that makes the ' onComplete event not fire HttpContext.Current.Response.Write(" ")End SubEnd Class

Hi,

Thanks for your response.

As far as I know, the FileUpload works differently in the IE and FireFox. For example, FileUpload1.PostedFile.FileName returns full path in the IE, but returns file name in the FireFox. So please check the uploadFile.FileName in the IE and FireFox. We can only get the file name with System.IO.Path.GetFileName method, such asSystem.IO.Path.GetFileName( FileUpload1.PostedFile.FileName );

I hope this helps.

So, in other words, your session variable is not set in Firefox. Is this
because you have disabled cookies in Firefox? Or are blocking them for that
site?

I checked and firefox was not blocking cookies but for some reason it wasn't getting the session information. I changed to cookeless and it works fine now in all browsers. There is another issue on a different server that I put the application on. Of course it works fine here on my development server but not on the published one. My server is a development server and is on a machine to itself and I do not work off of it. It hosts many websites all of which work fine viewed form here or out on the net.

Same exact Application, but different servers. Both are windows 2003 servers.

My site:http://faroutcomputers.dyndns.biz:8083/YoyoStudiosUploader2/ The application works fine here on all browsers and images are fine

Site with issues:http://upload.yoyostudios.com – Pictures missing very strange. Haven't seen this issue before.

There can be only one page directive.

Hi all,

I'm getting the "There can be only one 'page' directive."error message at an application that I just uploaded from my dev machine to a shared 'production' server. But here's the deal.

It goes to the login page just fine. Then it drops to default.aspx, presenting...nothing! It's supposed to "Response.Redirect("home.aspx")" But it doesn't. Then, if I point manually to home.aspx, I get:

Line 43: <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.text")%>
Line 44: </a>
Line 45: <%@dotnet.itags.org. Page Language="vb" AutoEventWireup="false" Codebehind="home.aspx.vb" Inherits="MAB.home" %>
Line 46: <%@dotnet.itags.org. Register TagPrefix="uc1" TagName="MAB" src="http://pics.10026.com/?src=MAB.ascx" %>
Line 47: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" />

with weird spacing and all. And the line numbers are screwey anyway. None of this happened on my local dev machine.

Anyone recognize the symptoms? I'm guessing that it's all one problem.

Thanks for reading,

Chris

Have you simply opened the aspx page and inspect the contents?

Looks like you have some funky include code going on or the like

double check for a control ( .ascx) that has a page directive in it - did you make sure the server is running the same version framework your using ?
Problem might be with page directive of control ( .ascx) .
I was thinking the same stuff y'all were.

There is one user control, it doesn't have a page directive, just the "<%@. Control Language-..." directive. I agree that it looks like messed up include, but I'm not using any includes anywhere in the app.

The lines 43 and 44 shown in the error page are exactly what I'd predict. Then it looks like it lists lines 1-3 as 45-47.

I don't know if the server is running the same framework version. Hmm. I'll look into that if you think it's a viable issue. What do I do if they're different?

Chris
So my application was developed under framework v. 1.1.4322.0 and the web host I use says "We are currently running ASP.Net 1.1 framework." How 'off' would the versions have to be to cause these kinds of problems? Anyone else have any ideas?

Chris
asp v1.1 means 1.1.4322 - so you should be OK - there are only 3 I think 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0

post your home.aspx code - might give more clues
OK, how? When I cut and paste the code in it's altered into WYSIWYG mash. Is there a trick to it?
hmmm. try putting it between [ code] tags

[ code]

put code here

[ /code]

I had to add a space to the tag so it would show up !
so thats....... bracket code bracket with no spaces

: )
If this works, it was by opening it in notepad and copy-pasting out of that instead of out of VS.

<title>home</title><%@. Page Language="vb" AutoEventWireup="false" Codebehind="home.aspx.vb" Inherits="MAB.home" %>
<%@. Register TagPrefix="uc1" TagName="MAB" src="http://pics.10026.com/?src=MAB.ascx" %>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" />
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<title>home</title>
<meta content="Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 7.1" name="GENERATOR">
<meta content="Visual Basic .NET 7.1" name="CODE_LANGUAGE">
<meta content="JavaScript" name="vs_defaultClientScript">
<meta content="http://schemas.microsoft.com/intellisense/ie5" name="vs_targetSchema">
<LINK href="http://links.10026.com/?link=Styles.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet">
</HEAD>

<body>
<form id="Form1" method="post" runat="server">
<uc1:MAB id="MAB1" runat="server" />
<div id="wrapper">
<div class="left">
<h3>Topics With Newest Entries</h3>
<div class="summary">
<asp:repeater id="rNew" runat="server">
<HeaderTemplate>
<ul>
</HeaderTemplate>
<FooterTemplate>
</ul>
</FooterTemplate>
<ItemTemplate>
<li>
<span class="bold">
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=topic.aspx?sub=<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_ID") %>">
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_name").toUpper %></a></span>
</li>
</ItemTemplate>
</asp:repeater>
</div>
<h3>Newest Picture Links</h3>
<div class="summary">
<asp:Repeater ID="rPics" Runat=server>
<ItemTemplate>
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=topic.aspx?sub=<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_ID")%>">
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.text")%>
</a>
</ItemTemplate>
</asp:Repeater>
</div>
</div
<div class="right">
<h2>Editor Highlights</h2>
<div class="summary">
<asp:repeater id="rEd" runat="server">
<ItemTemplate>
<span class="bold">
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=topic.aspx?sub=<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_ID") %>">
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_name").toUpper %></a>
</span>by
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.member_name") %>,
</ItemTemplate>
</asp:repeater>
</div>
</div
<div class="right">
<h2>Highest Rated</h2>
<asp:repeater id="rHigh" runat="server">
<ItemTemplate>
<div class="summary" style="background-color: #ffd;">
<div class="headline">
<span class="bold">
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=topic.aspx?sub=<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_ID") %>">
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_name").toUpper %></a>
</span>by
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.member_name") %>
on
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.creation_date").ToShortDateString %>
</div>
<%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.text") %>
</div>
</ItemTemplate>
</asp:repeater></div>
</div>
<asp:label id="lTest" Runat="server" Font-Size="Larger" Font-Bold="True" ForeColor="#400000" />
</form>
</body>
</HTML

well - for starters

<title>home</title><@.Page Language="vb" AutoEventWireup="false" Codebehind="home.aspx.vb"Inherits="MAB.home" >
needs to be switched around
the <@.Page directive has to be first line ( I believe) and title belongs in head tags
so make that like this

<@.Page Language="vb" AutoEventWireup="false" Codebehind="home.aspx.vb"Inherits="MAB.home" >
<head>
<title>home</title>
<meta...
other head stuff.....
</head
try that and see what happens

I'm becoming kind of freaked out about this. There is no <title>home</title> in my source before the page directive. If I paste from VS, it's trying to render the HTML. I'm trying it below to compare how it looks to the above suck.

<%@. Page Language="vb" AutoEventWireup="false" Codebehind="home.aspx.vb" Inherits="MAB.home" %> <%@. Register TagPrefix="uc1" TagName="MAB" src="http://pics.10026.com/?src=MAB.ascx" %>
<META content="Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 7.1" name=GENERATOR>
<META content="Visual Basic .NET 7.1" name=CODE_LANGUAGE>
<META content=JavaScript name=vs_defaultClientScript>
<META content=http://schemas.microsoft.com/intellisense/ie5 name=vs_targetSchema><LINK href="http://links.10026.com/?link=Styles.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>
<FORM id=Form1 method=post runat="server"><?xml:namespace prefix = uc1 /><uc1:MAB id=MAB1 runat="server"></uc1:MAB>
<DIV id=wrapper>
<DIV class=left>
<H3>Topics With Newest Entries</H3>
<DIV class=summary><?xml:namespace prefix = asp /><asp:repeater id=rNew runat="server"><HEADERTEMPLATE></HEADERTEMPLATE></asp:repeater>
<UL><FOOTERTEMPLATE></FOOTERTEMPLATE></UL><ITEMTEMPLATE>
<LI><SPAN class=bold><A href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://forums.asp.net/topic.aspx?sub=%3C%#%20DataBinder.Eval%28Container,%20" %="" )="" dataitem.topic_id="">"> <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_name").toUpper %></A></SPAN> </ITEMTEMPLATE></LI></DIV>
<H3>Newest Picture Links</H3>
<DIV class=summary><asp:Repeater id=rPics runat="server"><ITEMTEMPLATE><A href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://forums.asp.net/topic.aspx?sub=%3C%#%20DataBinder.Eval%28Container,%20" )="" dataitem.topic_id="">"> <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.text")%> </A></ITEMTEMPLATE></asp:Repeater></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=right>
<H2>Editor Highlights</H2>
<DIV class=summary><asp:repeater id=rEd runat="server"><ITEMTEMPLATE><SPAN class=bold><A href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://forums.asp.net/topic.aspx?sub=%3C%#%20DataBinder.Eval%28Container,%20" %="" )="" dataitem.topic_id="">"> <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_name").toUpper %></A> </SPAN>by <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.member_name") %>, </ITEMTEMPLATE></asp:repeater></DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=right>
<H2>Highest Rated</H2><asp:repeater id=rHigh runat="server"><ITEMTEMPLATE></ITEMTEMPLATE></asp:repeater>
<DIV class=summary style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,221)">
<DIV class=headline><SPAN class=bold><A href="http://links.10026.com/?link=http://forums.asp.net/topic.aspx?sub=%3C%#%20DataBinder.Eval%28Container,%20" %="" )="" dataitem.topic_id="">"> <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.topic_name").toUpper %></A> </SPAN>by <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.member_name") %> on <%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.creation_date").ToShortDateString %> </DIV><%# DataBinder.Eval(Container, "DataItem.text") %> </DIV></DIV></DIV><asp:label id=lTest runat="server" forecolor="#400000" font-bold="True" font-size="Larger"></asp:label></FORM><BR>
post the mab.ascx and the home.vb.aspx please - they should be plain text - if not - you can paste into notepad then copy-paste.
First, thanks for all your time. Now, these are pasted from VS. When I do that, it looks terrible in the post screen, but turns out almost OK. When I paste from notepad, every tab and space shows up as a etc. So:
--
mab.ascx:
--

<%@. Control Language="vb" AutoEventWireup="false" Codebehind="MAB.ascx.vb" Inherits="MAB.MAB" TargetSchema="http://schemas.microsoft.com/intellisense/ie5" %>

Welcome !

Add a Topic
Editor Queue
Admin Feedback
MAB Home

OrSearch

--
home.aspx.vb
--

Imports System.Data.SqlClient
Imports System.Text.RegularExpressions

Public Class home
Inherits System.Web.UI.Page
Public Conn As New SqlConnection(ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings("conString"))
Protected WithEvents cMAB As MAB

#Region " Web Form Designer Generated Code "

'This call is required by the Web Form Designer.
<System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepThrough()> Private Sub InitializeComponent()

End Sub
Protected WithEvents rNew As System.Web.UI.WebControls.Repeater
Protected WithEvents rPics As System.Web.UI.WebControls.Repeater
Protected WithEvents rEd As System.Web.UI.WebControls.Repeater
Protected WithEvents rHigh As System.Web.UI.WebControls.Repeater
Protected WithEvents lTest As System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label
Protected WithEvents ddTopic As System.Web.UI.WebControls.DropDownList
Protected WithEvents Label1 As System.Web.UI.WebControls.Label
Protected WithEvents newtopic As System.Web.UI.WebControls.HyperLink
Protected WithEvents hEditorQueue As System.Web.UI.WebControls.HyperLink

'NOTE: The following placeholder declaration is required by the Web Form Designer.
'Do not delete or move it.
Private designerPlaceholderDeclaration As System.Object

Private Sub Page_Init(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Init
'CODEGEN: This method call is required by the Web Form Designer
'Do not modify it using the code editor.
InitializeComponent()
End Sub

#End Region

Private Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
Const homeSize As Integer = 8 'number of articles per column here
Const homeLength As Integer = 200 'number of characters to display per article

Dim qs As String = "SELECT top 10 MAB_articles.article_ID, (SELECT top 1 MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID FROM MAB_articleIndex WHERE "
qs &= "MAB_articleIndex.article_ID = MAB_articles.article_ID) as topic_ID, ( SELECT top 1 topic_name FROM MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex "
qs &= "WHERE MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID AND MAB_articleIndex.article_ID = MAB_articles.article_ID) as topic_name "
qs &= "INTO T FROM MAB_articles ORDER BY MAB_articles.mod_date SELECT distinct topic_ID, topic_name FROM T drop table T"
Dim daNew As New SqlDataAdapter(qs, Conn)
Dim dsNew As New DataSet
Conn.Open()
daNew.Fill(dsNew, "articles")
Conn.Close()
rNew.DataSource = dsNew.Tables("articles")
rNew.DataBind()

qs = "SELECT text, (SELECT TOP 1 MAB_topics.topic_ID FROM MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = "
qs &= "MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ORDER BY MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ASC) "
qs &= " as topic_ID FROM MAB_articles WHERE CONTAINS(text, '""img src=*""')"
Dim daPics As New SqlDataAdapter(qs, Conn)
Dim dsPics As New DataSet
Conn.Open()
daPics.Fill(dsPics, "images")
Conn.Close()
For i As Integer = 0 To dsPics.Tables(0).Rows.Count - 1
'regex match for images and extract image tags into the "text" column of the dataset
Dim pat As String = "<img src=.+?>"
Dim r As Regex = New Regex(pat, RegexOptions.IgnoreCase Or RegexOptions.Multiline)
Dim m As Match = r.Match(dsPics.Tables(0).Rows(i).Item("text"))
'Dim matchcount As Integer = 0
Dim newImageString As String = ""
While (m.Success)
'matchcount += 1
newImageString &= m.Value
m = m.NextMatch
End While
dsPics.Tables(0).Rows(i).Item("text") = newImageString
Next
rPics.DataSource = dsPics.Tables(0)
rPics.DataBind()

qs = "SELECT distinct top 20 (MAB_articles.rating * MAB_articles.ed_pick) as ranking, (SELECT TOP 1 MAB_topics.topic_ID FROM MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ORDER BY MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ASC) as topic_ID, (SELECT TOP 1 MAB_topics.topic_name FROM MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ORDER BY MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ASC) as topic_name, MAB_articles.creation_date, MAB_members.member_name, substring(MAB_articles.text, 1, 200) as text FROM MAB_articles, MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex, MAB_members WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID AND MAB_members.member_ID = MAB_articles.author_ID AND MAB_articles.ed_pick > 0 ORDER BY ranking DESC"
Dim daEd As New SqlDataAdapter(qs, Conn)
Dim dsEd As New DataSet
Conn.Open()
daEd.Fill(dsEd, "articles")
Conn.Close()
For i As Integer = 0 To dsEd.Tables(0).Rows.Count - 1
dsEd.Tables("articles").Rows(i).Item(4) = deSpan(dsEd.Tables("articles").Rows(i).Item(4))
Next
rEd.DataSource = dsEd.Tables("articles")
rEd.DataBind()

qs = "SELECT distinct top 8 MAB_articles.rating, (SELECT TOP 1 MAB_topics.topic_ID FROM MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ORDER BY MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ASC) as topic_ID, (SELECT TOP 1 MAB_topics.topic_name FROM MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ORDER BY MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID ASC) as topic_name, MAB_articles.creation_date, MAB_members.member_name, substring(MAB_articles.text, 1, 200) as text FROM MAB_articles, MAB_topics, MAB_articleIndex, MAB_members WHERE MAB_articles.article_ID = MAB_articleIndex.article_ID AND MAB_topics.topic_ID = MAB_articleIndex.topic_ID AND MAB_members.member_ID = MAB_articles.author_ID ORDER BY MAB_articles.rating DESC"
Dim daHigh As New SqlDataAdapter(qs, Conn)
Dim dsHigh As New DataSet
Conn.Open()
daHigh.Fill(dsHigh, "articles")
Conn.Close()
For i As Integer = 0 To dsHigh.Tables(0).Rows.Count - 1
dsHigh.Tables("articles").Rows(i).Item(4) = deSpan(dsHigh.Tables("articles").Rows(i).Item(4))
Next
rHigh.DataSource = dsHigh.Tables("articles")
rHigh.DataBind()
End Sub

Public Function deSpan(ByVal str As String) As String
Dim letterPlace As Integer = 0
Dim spanCount As Integer = 0
While letterPlace < str.Length - 6
If str.Substring(letterPlace, 6) = "<span " Then
spanCount += 1
ElseIf str.Substring(letterPlace, 6) = "</span" Then
spanCount -= 1
End If
letterPlace += 1
End While
Dim braceCount As Integer = 0
For j As Integer = 0 To str.Length - 1
If str.Chars(j) = "<" Then
braceCount += 1
ElseIf str.Chars(j) = ">" Then
braceCount -= 1
End If
Next
For k As Integer = 1 To braceCount
str &= ">"
Next
For i As Integer = 1 To spanCount
str &= "</span>"
Next
Return str
End Function

Private Sub cMAB_topicChanged(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As EventArgs) Handles cMAB.topicChanged
Response.Redirect("topic.aspx?sub=3")
End Sub

End Class

Chris (fingers crossed on how it turns out)
Well - I don't see anything wrong there...
You said in your first post that the default.aspx works ( which we haven't seen )
It takes you to login.aspx. From login.aspx, the user is supposed to be redirected to home.aspx
This is where it's failing right ? -Then if you manually type in home.aspx, you get the error.
can you post login aspx and it's vb code?
very weird since it works on development - I would assume its a path or security issue on production server

There can be only one page directive

I opened an asp page in VS.net 2002 and then saved it as an aspx page,
"mypage.aspx".

I was prompted if I wanted to create the class file for the page and clicked
yes.

Now when I try and open the page I get the error message :

"There can be only one 'page' directive."

I am sick of these problems. I have had a look in the folder and there is
only one "mypage.aspx.vb" file.

Whats happening ?I haven't seen this error personally, but, in each .aspx file there can only
be one line that starts:

<%@. Page ... %
where you set things like the page language, caching directives etc. Perhaps
open the file in Notepad and check to see if you have more than one such
line.

Cheers
Ken

"Poppy" <paul.diamond@.NOSPAMthemedialounge.com> wrote in message
news:%23zo42FhnDHA.688@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
: I opened an asp page in VS.net 2002 and then saved it as an aspx page,
: "mypage.aspx".
:
: I was prompted if I wanted to create the class file for the page and
clicked
: yes.
:
: Now when I try and open the page I get the error message :
:
: "There can be only one 'page' directive."
:
: I am sick of these problems. I have had a look in the folder and there is
: only one "mypage.aspx.vb" file.
:
: Whats happening ?
:
:

There has to be a better way to develop web applications.

I have been reading this thread with some interest but also noting that in
the context being discussed all of the arguements are on technology and not
on how to use the technology to increase productivity and to provide value t
o
our customers. Maybe that sounds strange to some of u, but as a MS Architec
t
I know this to be true and I've seen it on so many projects.
It's is my experience, 25+ yrs, that most developers will continue to
re-invent the wheel for each project. Remember, 'I don't know why he did
that but I can do it much better'. The oft used word 'reuse' is generally
thought to be reusing business objects, but I suggest the benfits of reuse
are really felt in reusing code bases and coding patterns, they are
repeatable therefore prompting reuse.
No and I mean no technology or application development will be productive
without interaction with the customer, understanding what they are asking fo
r
and having them validate your design and implementation. The best thing a
developer can do to increase productivity, technology independent, is a good
design that is validated against use cases. I'm of the opinion that with
OOA/OOD you need to perform a 'standard' OOD then implement that design. It
will make the engineer more productive!!
What does this have to do with the technology discussion we have here? Many
of the issues that have been discussed can be overcome with design goals. I
n
other words, the design will determine which technology and how it is to be
developed.
Additionally, I have been developing, specifically, with MS technologies
since late 80s. At that time I came from the mainframe era and with the
coming of events, properties and object orientation I knew that a revolution
in development was on the horizon and still is with the advent of Object
oriented technologies. The speed with which development can occur has
increased many fold. In 2000 I designed and led the development of a 3M
project, for over 20K pensioners and their families paying out over 345M for
over two yrs. I did this with 5 developers and 4 SMEs; I would sure like to
see you do this with Java platform.
Despite what some has said on this post, .Net platform creation was not
developed based on Java, remember Java is a language not a platform. The JV
M
and Java application servers are the platform. If you want to argue the
benefits of one language vs another I don't think you do that in the context
of the platform. if you will look at the
distributed architecture for both platforms you will discover how different
these two platforms are.
As was said, somewhere above, unless you get rid of W3, html, etc. aren't
going away and that is a good thing, no one company controls the standards.
Learning curve; .Net supports multiple languages not because of portability,
as was mentioned, but for reduced training costs to move into object oriente
d
programming. Do you think it is more expensive to teach a cobol developer t
o
code C# or have the cobol developer us the .Net version of cobol? This make
s
a better case for this platform rather than a platform that locks a develope
r
into one language, now that is control; anyway portability in Java is a
misnomer. Every platform u go to has a different JVM and different
application server, all of these require complier changes to run on that
platform and some designs changes
Since I was using VB6 in an object oriented way my trip to dotnet wasn't a
huge learning curve, I already understood object orientation and how to use
it. Example, use callback in VB6 and use delegates with events in .Net to
have callback capability, Remoting replaced DCOM, is that a bad thing, no it
is not, it did improve on the way DCOM worked, primarily allowing remote
communication thru a firewall.
As of this writing I can't think of very many things that I can't do with
.Net whether or not it is C# (or come other language), asp.net, etc. .Net
gives me access to windows APIs which means I can do anything the windows
server will allow me to do.
I'm sorry but imho, this thread is much to do about nothing; with the
exception that it allows the religous among us to prostalize about our
beliefs of which languages are better. Engineers should worry how do I appl
y
the technology rather than the state of the development world. It is like
abortion, everyone has their opinion so we never come to completion or
agreement.
Regarding productivity in VS: I use two add-ins to add additional
functionality to VS that is useful and adds to VS' already awesome IDE. The
first is from JetBrains and is called ReSharper and their profiler, sorry bu
t
I don't remember that name. the other product has to do with my architectua
l
duties (design) and it is visual-paradigm's SDE, software development
environment. It allows me to do a complete OOA/OOD and have it generate
code, even code with implementation in it. You can reverse engineer to keep
your model uptodate and you can regenerate and not impact your
implementation. This capability gives a developer the capability to keep
technical specs uptodate with code.
Regarding the '90' languages on a resume. I'm one of those who has multiple
languages on his resume and it is not that I have used many languages but
demostrates to the interviewer that I can go into many environments and pick
up and understand what is going easier than those who haven 't experienced
such varied environments. It is not a matter of numbers, maybe I have been
interviewing more than most of you, after all I'm a consultant, but this inf
o
is very valuable in getting interviews.
"Christopher Hansen" wrote:
> The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger f
or
> companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers)
,
> the changing nature of technology in general.
> The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
> By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
> implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If thi
s
> is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
> vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsof
t
> seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplac
e
> by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.
> Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
> that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
> concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
> heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
> super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
> cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT profession
als
> use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, b
y
> design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This
is
> done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think agai
n.
> We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
> Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual peo
ple
> who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation o
f
> the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
> disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
> business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.
> Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
> something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
> finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Ad
obe
> and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
> finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have
a
> new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
> tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion
/
> J2EE anyone'). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.
> If the development community as a whole demands that their be business val
ue
> in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
> then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
> hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
> we're all going the "g

" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on
the
> block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
> software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owne
ss
> back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools
.
>
> "RCS" wrote:
>Thanks for continuing the discussing, but I think you have gone down a rabbi
t
hole. Let me explain.
your 1) This is not something new, in my 25 yrs of IT work this challenge
is part of every decission to build or purchase and requires the same
attention as any analysis on projects direction. Consequently, I'm not
exactly sure how this applies to our discussion.
your 2) I don't disagree with your opinion however, it would be the
exception rather than the rule. Changing technologies or bringing in
competing technologies can have a very negative on the delivery of business
systems. In other words many large enterprises have or will make their
technology decisions not so much on technology but on the costs of
re-training and support costs for additional technologies. These costs are
not in-significant.
your 3) Sorry but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. This
has been apart of of enterprise architecture for many years.
your 4) This isn't anything new an architect is always making decissions
with these points in mind. The type of technology used doesn't have an
impact, the design and the implementation has much more impact.
your 5) See 4 above.
"j-integra_support@.intrinsyc.com" wrote:

> Some related thoughts:
> 1) It is simply not cost effective for any company to "start from
> scratch" and rebuild everything with the latest and greatest
> language/platform.
> 2) All technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses. To limit
> yourself to one language/platform or another does not make good
> business sense. Choose the technology based on your requirements.
> 3) With that said, interoperability has/will become an issue for all
> businesses. Having an interoperability plan is key!
> 4) Web Services is the latest approach to interoperability, but it is
> proving (like all technology) to have strengths and weaknesses.
> 5) What do you do when Web Services proves to be much too slow for your
> requirements? What if your development team has no experience working
> with WS and you have tight deadlines to meet? This is where other
> interoperability approaches are needed, preferably ones that are easy
> to implement and optimize performance. The following whitepaper
> discusses your options for interoperability...
> http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs...per_interop.pdf
> Shane Sauer
> J-Integra Interoperability Solutions
> http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
> When Web Services are not enough
>

There has to be a better way to develop web applications.

I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
but so far I've had to learn:

HTML
XML
JavaScript
ASP.NET using VB.NET
..NET Framework
ADO.NET
SSL
FormAuthentication
(and probably a few more things)

Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.

I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but
the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
"portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take
the penalty. There has got to be a better way?

Rob."Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
[...snip...]

TROLL POST ALERT!
Trolls usually do one liners, kinda like what you just posted.

So do you have an opinion or do you just like to call everyone a Troll? I
think it is often called, I can't deal with this reality, so lets bring out
the "Troll Defense". -- I think it goes something like this -- "The fabric
of time is being questioned, therefore he must be a Troll"

Your input has demonstrate your value.

"Sean M" <tamasean@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O88ukOxhFHA.3260@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> [...snip...]
> TROLL POST ALERT!
Hello,

first of all. Using .NET and ASP.NET does not tie you to MS OS. There's also
open-source implementation for non-MS OS's
http://www.mono-project.com

Otherwise it is somewhat true. The term jungle has increased a lot,
however.NET is a effort to better as it ties APIs for these things together
in the Framework. If you try to do the same with previous versions of MS
technologies, you'd need to install tons of separate libraries such as
MSXML, MDAC (though .NET requires certain version too but that usually
exists with newer OS's).

Your example of XML being overhead is also true,. However there are
alternatives such as binary serialization, remoting etc etc. So iut's also
case.specific, not just always generally a problem.

It's a large topic to discuss but I understand the pain.

--
Teemu Keiski
ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
Finland, EU
http://blogs.aspadvice.com/joteke
re:
> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.

Rob, take a look at :

http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.

You may have to reconsider your statement
quoted above after you see that page.

Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
steep than any other web platform's learning curve.

Progress demands fast change.

Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.

In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so far
>I've had to learn:
> HTML
> XML
> JavaScript
> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> .NET Framework
> ADO.NET
> SSL
> FormAuthentication
> (and probably a few more things)
> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far
> the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just
> crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> languages and technology, then web application development is never going to mature and
> become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up to
> speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of using
> ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe
> dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those three
> technology/tools.
> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the bottom
> line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
> And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of performance) how
> often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are
> changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take the
> penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> Rob.
"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> There has got to be a better way?

So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're
having to do some learning...?

No-one's forcing you to use .NET.

No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.

No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
Yes, I do actually like Serialization and use it more often.

I didn't realize it was available for non-MS. Does the non-MS
implementation ofer identical feature sets and is it stable? I haven't seen
any hosting services that offer it or support it so I'd imagine it would be
a manage in-house situation?

I think the dev tools are a LONG way off from any real sense of
"unification" -- VS 2005 doesn't appear to be much different, basically
fixes and extends on things that should have been part of VS 2003.

I'm sure it is a little better than it was with just ASP, but we're going on
5 years now and it feels like the dev tools just aren't progressing at a
pace they should be to keep up with demand. RAD is what it is about and it
really doesn't feel any fast today than it did 5 years ago.

Rob.

"Teemu Keiski" <joteke@.aspalliance.com> wrote in message
news:eAYPg4xhFHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> first of all. Using .NET and ASP.NET does not tie you to MS OS. There's
> also open-source implementation for non-MS OS's
> http://www.mono-project.com
> Otherwise it is somewhat true. The term jungle has increased a lot,
> however.NET is a effort to better as it ties APIs for these things
> together in the Framework. If you try to do the same with previous
> versions of MS technologies, you'd need to install tons of separate
> libraries such as MSXML, MDAC (though .NET requires certain version too
> but that usually exists with newer OS's).
> Your example of XML being overhead is also true,. However there are
> alternatives such as binary serialization, remoting etc etc. So iut's also
> case.specific, not just always generally a problem.
> It's a large topic to discuss but I understand the pain.
> --
> Teemu Keiski
> ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
> Finland, EU
> http://blogs.aspadvice.com/joteke
Juan,

That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but
important to RAD (rapid application development), no.

I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake
of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do
find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic
that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing message.

I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it
does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are simply
different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to
turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same thing and
people argue for days that language X is better than language Y, but the
reality is most good developers just want the best tool available that is
easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I don't
mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't
afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language
which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the
business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of
90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it
is really a pretty sad state of affairs.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> re:
>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server
>> OS.
> Rob, take a look at :
> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
> You may have to reconsider your statement
> quoted above after you see that page.
> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
> Progress demands fast change.
> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
>>curve, but so far I've had to learn:
>>
>> HTML
>> XML
>> JavaScript
>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>> .NET Framework
>> ADO.NET
>> SSL
>> FormAuthentication
>> (and probably a few more things)
>>
>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
>> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
>> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
>> And XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out
>> data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research
>> I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is
>> just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this
>> bizarre environment of languages and technology, then web application
>> development is never going to mature and become cost effective for
>> companies to exploit.
>>
>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
>> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
>> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
>> ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the
>> simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those three
>> technology/tools.
>>
>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
>> but the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET
>> your bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
>> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
>> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
>> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
>> for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have
>> to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
Your objections are acknowledged.

What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Juan,
> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed languages
> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
> application development), no.
> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change OR
> change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you point out
> a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET. Your
> sending a confusing message.
> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best tool
> available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I
> don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't afford
> to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language which will go out of
> "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure it maybe a money making scheme
> for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all
> the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think
> about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.
> Rob.
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> re:
>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>>
>> Rob, take a look at :
>>
>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>>
>> You may have to reconsider your statement
>> quoted above after you see that page.
>>
>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>>
>> Progress demands fast change.
>>
>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>>
>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so far
>>>I've had to learn:
>>>
>>> HTML
>>> XML
>>> JavaScript
>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>>> .NET Framework
>>> ADO.NET
>>> SSL
>>> FormAuthentication
>>> (and probably a few more things)
>>>
>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So
>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>>
>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up to
>>> speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just that --
>>> a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away with just
>>> those three technology/tools.
>>>
>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the bottom
>>> line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>>> And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of performance) how
>>> often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are
>>> changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
>>> for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take the
>>> penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Mark,

Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over
and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages
on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The
concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the restrictions and
limitations that go with it.

MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it
stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.

No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what
is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that
how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa

Rob.

"Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> There has got to be a better way?
> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
> you're having to do some learning...?
> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it --
stop re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same
thing. Evolve the tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again --
the only message I see there is that MS got lost and their "code re-use"
went out the door -- which isn't exactly a great selling point for their
lastest and great new tools.

But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" --
version 3.1 due out this holiday season ;)

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:emmKVvyhFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Your objections are acknowledged.
> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Juan,
>>
>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the
>> listed languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes,
>> but important to RAD (rapid application development), no.
>>
>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the
>> sake of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority.
>> I do find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY
>> archaic that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing
>> message.
>>
>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but
>> it does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are
>> simply different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately
>> used to turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same
>> thing and people argue for days that language X is better than language
>> Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best tool
>> available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as
>> a developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is
>> it -- businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the
>> lastest fad language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the
>> next "fad" language. Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft,
>> but it doesn't do the business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all
>> the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that
>> fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> re:
>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server
>>>> OS.
>>>
>>> Rob, take a look at :
>>>
>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>>>
>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
>>> quoted above after you see that page.
>>>
>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>>>
>>> Progress demands fast change.
>>>
>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>>>
>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>> ======================
>>>
>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
>>>>curve, but so far I've had to learn:
>>>>
>>>> HTML
>>>> XML
>>>> JavaScript
>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>>>> .NET Framework
>>>> ADO.NET
>>>> SSL
>>>> FormAuthentication
>>>> (and probably a few more things)
>>>>
>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
>>>> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting
>>>> the enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for
>>>> example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to
>>>> write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far
>>>> the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin'
>>>> helpful. This is just crazy, if the development community has to
>>>> continue on in this bizarre environment of languages and technology,
>>>> then web application development is never going to mature and become
>>>> cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>>>
>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
>>>> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from
>>>> the start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET
>>>> framework ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for
>>>> only the simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those
>>>> three technology/tools.
>>>>
>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
>>>> but the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET
>>>> your bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
>>>> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks
>>>> moving servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are
>>>> changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't --
>>>> so the majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better
>>>> way?
>>>>
>>>> Rob.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
re:
> listing 90 languages on my resume

I see you're against choice.

Do you understand the difference between
*choice* of languages and learning all of them ?

re:
> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now

OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
Who is "there by now" ?

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Mark,
> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over and over is
> NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages on my resume is more of
> an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and
> all the restrictions and limitations that go with it.
> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it stands today,
> we're a good 5-10 years away.
> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what is your
> point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that how you think -- be
> a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
> Rob.

> "Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're having to
>> do some learning...?
>>
>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>
>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>
>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
You managed to evade the question very well.

The question is :
> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?

Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?

What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?

Is that too difficult a question ?

Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?

Please answer.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5JBN3yhFHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
> re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve the
> tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see there
> is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly a
> great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
> But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version 3.1
> due out this holiday season ;)
> Rob.
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:emmKVvyhFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Your objections are acknowledged.
>>
>> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Juan,
>>>
>>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed languages
>>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
>>> application development), no.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change
>>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you point
>>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET.
>>> Your sending a confusing message.
>>>
>>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
>>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
>>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
>>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
>>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
>>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
>>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
>>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
>>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure
>>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any
>>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone
>>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>>
>>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> re:
>>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>>>>
>>>> Rob, take a look at :
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>>>>
>>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
>>>> quoted above after you see that page.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
>>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>>>>
>>>> Progress demands fast change.
>>>>
>>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
>>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>>> ======================
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
>>>>>far I've had to learn:
>>>>>
>>>>> HTML
>>>>> XML
>>>>> JavaScript
>>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>>>>> .NET Framework
>>>>> ADO.NET
>>>>> SSL
>>>>> FormAuthentication
>>>>> (and probably a few more things)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
>>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
>>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
>>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So
>>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
>>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
>>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up
>>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
>>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
>>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away
>>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
>>>>>
>>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
>>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
>>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
>>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms??
>>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
>>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
>>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it
better, I don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language of
the day to be over so we can concentrate on design and produce results and
less of "oh yeah, can't do that with ASP.NET so ya have to do some
JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".

So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or no?

Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic your
favorite iPod color -- stay within context.

You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.

"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OMD884yhFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> re:
>> listing 90 languages on my resume
> I see you're against choice.
> Do you understand the difference between
> *choice* of languages and learning all of them ?
> re:
>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now
> OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
> Who is "there by now" ?
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Mark,
>>
>> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
>> over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
>> languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an
>> accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the
>> restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>>
>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as
>> it stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>>
>> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So
>> what is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it --
>> is that how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>>
>> Rob.
>> "Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>>
>>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
>>> you're having to do some learning...?
>>>
>>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>>
>>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>>
>>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
re:
>I don't know, don't care

Yup, that sums up your stance.

You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
than work towards getting a better product.

Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?

Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
without offering any suggestions for improvement ?

You don't offer any alternatives,
and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.

You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%23W4uJkzhFHA.4048@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it better, I
> don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language of the day to be over so
> we can concentrate on design and produce results and less of "oh yeah, can't do that
> with ASP.NET so ya have to do some JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".
> So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or no?
> Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic your favorite
> iPod color -- stay within context.
> You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.

> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OMD884yhFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> re:
>>> listing 90 languages on my resume
>>
>> I see you're against choice.
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between
>> *choice* of languages and learning all of them ?
>>
>> re:
>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now
>>
>> OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
>> Who is "there by now" ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over and over
>>> is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages on my resume is
>>> more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the
>>> syntax and all the restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>>>
>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it stands
>>> today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>>>
>>> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what is your
>>> point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that how you think --
>>> be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>>>
>>> Rob.
>>
>>> "Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>>>
>>>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're having to
>>>> do some learning...?
>>>>
>>>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>>>
>>>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>>>
>>>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
>>
>>
If you understood what I was saying, you'd realize it is not a bitch
session.

Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --

CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework

If a huge base of HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS code needs to be ported,
build a very good migration tool that will generate CLD (and do it right).

Make CLD syntatically easy to follow/read and provide an rich intelligent
IDE environment that has markers that work beyond a single module, provide
more sophisticated lookup linking, improve help link system and provide MUCH
more real world code samples in the help system. Provide managed and
unmanaged connection options, provide a real debugger (similar in power to
VB6 debugger). Just make life easier for the developer so we can get more
done, higher quality, and in less time.

That would be a start -- something .NET should have been but failed. And
don't start on "cross-platform" -- make that come later as "needed" (if
needed at all)? I mean that is the way it stands right now, you don't see
many folks doing ASP.NET with .NET Framework development on Unix servers.
This is not a debate about which is better, it is a reality of the
situation. Don't build an enormous amount of cross-platform
compatibility/flexibilty that is going to be used by <2% of dev community.

Rob.

"Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uuWLbB0hFHA.3692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> re:
>>I don't know, don't care
> Yup, that sums up your stance.
> You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
> than work towards getting a better product.
> Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
> Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?
> Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
> without offering any suggestions for improvement ?
> You don't offer any alternatives,
> and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.
> You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:%23W4uJkzhFHA.4048@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it
>> better, I don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language
>> of the day to be over so we can concentrate on design and produce results
>> and less of "oh yeah, can't do that with ASP.NET so ya have to do some
>> JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".
>>
>> So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or
>> no?
>>
>> Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic
>> your favorite iPod color -- stay within context.
>>
>> You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.
>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:OMD884yhFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> re:
>>>> listing 90 languages on my resume
>>>
>>> I see you're against choice.
>>>
>>> Do you understand the difference between
>>> *choice* of languages and learning all of them ?
>>>
>>> re:
>>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now
>>>
>>> OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
>>> Who is "there by now" ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>> ======================
>>>
>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> Mark,
>>>>
>>>> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
>>>> over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
>>>> languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an
>>>> accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the
>>>> restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>>>>
>>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as
>>>> it stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>>>>
>>>> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So
>>>> what is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept
>>>> it -- is that how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>>>>
>>>> Rob.
>>>
>>>> "Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>>>>
>>>>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
>>>>> you're having to do some learning...?
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>>>>
>>>>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
> over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
> languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment.
> The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the restrictions and
> limitations that go with it.

Well, then, cast your mind back to the language in which you wrote your
first ever line of code, and stick with that...
> Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --
> CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework

Dude!

...

Dude!!

I hate to tell you this, but Microsoft didn't create the Internet (as we all
know, Al Gore did). Neither did Microsoft create HTML, XHTML, JavaScript,
CSS, HTTP, or any of that stuff that makes web pages what they are.

What Microsoft created was ASP.Net, which is a SERVER-SIDE technology for
working with all that stuff that Microsoft did NOT create.

Microsoft is not the God of the Intenet. If they were, I'm sure it would
have ended up much simpler to work with than it is. They are simply dealing
with it. I would suggest you do the same.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
The sun never sets on
the Kingdom of Heaven

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:edRUWh0hFHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you understood what I was saying, you'd realize it is not a bitch
> session.
> Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --
> CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework
> If a huge base of HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS code needs to be ported,
> build a very good migration tool that will generate CLD (and do it right).
> Make CLD syntatically easy to follow/read and provide an rich intelligent
> IDE environment that has markers that work beyond a single module, provide
> more sophisticated lookup linking, improve help link system and provide
> MUCH more real world code samples in the help system. Provide managed and
> unmanaged connection options, provide a real debugger (similar in power to
> VB6 debugger). Just make life easier for the developer so we can get more
> done, higher quality, and in less time.
> That would be a start -- something .NET should have been but failed. And
> don't start on "cross-platform" -- make that come later as "needed" (if
> needed at all)? I mean that is the way it stands right now, you don't see
> many folks doing ASP.NET with .NET Framework development on Unix servers.
> This is not a debate about which is better, it is a reality of the
> situation. Don't build an enormous amount of cross-platform
> compatibility/flexibilty that is going to be used by <2% of dev community.
> Rob.
> Rob.
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uuWLbB0hFHA.3692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> re:
>>>I don't know, don't care
>>
>> Yup, that sums up your stance.
>>
>> You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
>> than work towards getting a better product.
>>
>> Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
>> Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?
>>
>> Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
>> without offering any suggestions for improvement ?
>>
>> You don't offer any alternatives,
>> and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.
>>
>> You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23W4uJkzhFHA.4048@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does
>>> it better, I don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of
>>> language of the day to be over so we can concentrate on design and
>>> produce results and less of "oh yeah, can't do that with ASP.NET so ya
>>> have to do some JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work and...".
>>>
>>> So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or
>>> no?
>>>
>>> Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic
>>> your favorite iPod color -- stay within context.
>>>
>>> You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.
>>
>>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OMD884yhFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> re:
>>>>> listing 90 languages on my resume
>>>>
>>>> I see you're against choice.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the difference between
>>>> *choice* of languages and learning all of them ?
>>>>
>>>> re:
>>>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now
>>>>
>>>> OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
>>>> Who is "there by now" ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>>> ======================
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks
>>>>> over and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
>>>>> languages on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an
>>>>> accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only the syntax and all
>>>>> the restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but
>>>>> as it stands today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point??
>>>>> So what is your point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept
>>>>> it -- is that how you think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because
>>>>>> you're having to do some learning...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
While you're at it, suggest that Microsoft should do away
with the W3C ( which is the standards body for HTML,
XHTML, CSS, and a host of other web "standards" ).

Then, Microsoft should do away with whomever
it is that controls Javascript standards, so Microsoft
can replace Javascript, HTML, XHTML, CSS with
a Microsoft-created unified system to be called
CLD - Common Language Development and with
CLF - Common Language Framework

How soon would the Justice Dept. breathe
on Microsoft's neck for attempting to do that ?

Maybe you should give this a bit more thought...

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:edRUWh0hFHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If you understood what I was saying, you'd realize it is not a bitch session.
> Yes, do away with HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS and make it --
> CLD - Common Language Development, CLF - Common Language Framework
> If a huge base of HTML, XHTML, JavaScript, CSS code needs to be ported, build a very
> good migration tool that will generate CLD (and do it right).
> Make CLD syntatically easy to follow/read and provide an rich intelligent IDE
> environment that has markers that work beyond a single module, provide more
> sophisticated lookup linking, improve help link system and provide MUCH more real world
> code samples in the help system. Provide managed and unmanaged connection options,
> provide a real debugger (similar in power to VB6 debugger). Just make life easier for
> the developer so we can get more done, higher quality, and in less time.
> That would be a start -- something .NET should have been but failed. And don't start on
> "cross-platform" -- make that come later as "needed" (if needed at all)? I mean that is
> the way it stands right now, you don't see many folks doing ASP.NET with .NET Framework
> development on Unix servers. This is not a debate about which is better, it is a reality
> of the situation. Don't build an enormous amount of cross-platform
> compatibility/flexibilty that is going to be used by <2% of dev community.
> Rob.
> Rob.
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uuWLbB0hFHA.3692@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> re:
>>>I don't know, don't care
>>
>> Yup, that sums up your stance.
>>
>> You are confirming that you'd rather complain,
>> than work towards getting a better product.
>>
>> Do you have *anything* positive to offer ?
>> Like, maybe, a suggestion or two ?
>>
>> Or, as is apparent, do you prefer to bitch
>> without offering any suggestions for improvement ?
>>
>> You don't offer any alternatives,
>> and you don't offer any suggestions for improvement.
>>
>> You just bitch. That doesn't get us anywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23W4uJkzhFHA.4048@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> Why are you intent on comparisons? I'm not, so why are you? Who does it better, I
>>> don't know, don't care -- I just want the insanity of language of the day to be over
>>> so we can concentrate on design and produce results and less of "oh yeah, can't do
>>> that with ASP.NET so ya have to do some JavaScript and do a little HTML setup work
>>> and...".
>>>
>>> So I take it you agree with the obvious problem in efficiency? yes or no?
>>>
>>> Against choice? You on planet earth -- this ain't the business of pic your favorite
>>> iPod color -- stay within context.
>>>
>>> You sound like a Microsoft troll -- get over your loyality already.
>>
>>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OMD884yhFHA.1044@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> re:
>>>>> listing 90 languages on my resume
>>>>
>>>> I see you're against choice.
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the difference between
>>>> *choice* of languages and learning all of them ?
>>>>
>>>> re:
>>>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now
>>>>
>>>> OK, if not MS, then who ? Who is doing a better job than MS ?
>>>> Who is "there by now" ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Juan T. Llibre
>>>> ASP.NET MVP
>>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>>>> ======================
>>>>
>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:OjAH9xyhFHA.2904@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over and over
>>>>> is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90 languages on my resume is
>>>>> more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The concepts don't change, only
>>>>> the syntax and all the restrictions and limitations that go with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> MS have the resources, not I -- and we should be there by now -- but as it stands
>>>>> today, we're a good 5-10 years away.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one is forcing you to post a response -- so what is your point?? So what is your
>>>>> point? Don't complain, don't make waves, just accept it -- is that how you
>>>>> think -- be a sheep, baaa baaa baaa
>>>>>
>>>>> Rob.
>>>>
>>>>> "Mark Rae" <mark@.mark-N-O-S-P-A-M-rae.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ucDDkUyhFHA.4000@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There has got to be a better way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So why don't you develop it, smart-arse, instead of whinging because you're having
>>>>>> to do some learning...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one's forcing you to use .NET.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one's forcing you to write a single line of code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No-one's forcing you even to own a PC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Because, learning the language of the day to accomplish the same tasks over
and over is NOT efficient -- that's why. Like I said, listing 90
languages
on my resume is more of an embarrassment than an accomplishment. The
concepts don't change, only the syntax and all the restrictions and
limitations that go with it.<<

Are you suggesting that MS should come out with ONE language and
somehow make everyone use it? That's ridiculous. The Microsoft = Borg
crowd would have a field day with that. You want on language for
everything, you go ahead and get all the programmers to agree on one,
and maybe then MS will do it.

Also, look at the list you provided in your original post. Only two of
the things listed there are languages (VB and Javascript), and even in
that case VB script exists, so you could get away with only one
language. The rest are tools for different tasks. You're basically
wondering why GM can't come up with a car that toasts my bread, so I
won't have to learn how to use a toaster.

-Phil
Ok, read your "interesting" conversation. Pretty nice, really. But for a
constructive thought you have to think longer. We all know there are just two
platforms which have "legal" right to claim to be the platform of tomorrow,
Java and .NET. Of course, .NET is a bit better because it had Java to learn
from. That is what I read in most third party .NET documentations. But that's
not the main problem here. .NET is better because of its properties, events,
delegates and so on. Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics. Mono is doing
a great job porting .NET to other platforms and Microsoft should be thankful.
Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know what
I'm talkong about.

I think Rob's problem is that Java, nor .NET offers true "productivity
whithout hedache" programming. Java is totaly nowhere whith its MVC patterns,
which only make things hard to code, and C# makes things worst because it
spoiles all expectancies of being the "one perfect language" we all heard
about the way Microsoft presents it. So the problem here is actually
Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think what
I say is rude) and whith SQL Server. Oh, and even with Visual Studio. I am
not complaining just to complain. But .NET is just another language - why
then it is presented as being the best? I repeat, I AM a .NET coder, I DO
like .NET better than Java because of its events and properties, but I would
expect more.
All you needed to learn was HTML and Javascript.

http://www.askblax.com

Rob R. Ainscough wrote:
> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
> but so far I've had to learn:
> HTML
> XML
> JavaScript
> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> .NET Framework
> ADO.NET
> SSL
> FormAuthentication
> (and probably a few more things)
> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
> applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.
> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but
> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take
> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> Rob.
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
> You managed to evade the question very well.
> The question is :
> > What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
> Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?
> What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?

The Open Source Community is... I think Rob has some very valid
points. Learning new for the sake of learning new is just plain
stupid. It impedes real development, impedes learning and impedes the
advancement of technology.

http://www.askblax.com

> Is that too difficult a question ?
> Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?
> Please answer.
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:e5JBN3yhFHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
> > re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve the
> > tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see there
> > is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly a
> > great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
> > But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version 3.1
> > due out this holiday season ;)
> > Rob.
> > "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:emmKVvyhFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> Your objections are acknowledged.
> >>
> >> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Juan T. Llibre
> >> ASP.NET MVP
> >> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> >> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >> ======================
> >>
> >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>> Juan,
> >>>
> >>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of thelisted languages
> >>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
> >>> application development), no.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change
> >>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find itfunny you point
> >>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET.
> >>> Your sending a confusing message.
> >>>
> >>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
> >>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
> >>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
> >>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days thatlanguage X is
> >>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
> >>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
> >>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
> >>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
> >>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure
> >>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any
> >>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languageslong and someone
> >>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.
> >>>
> >>> Rob.
> >>>
> >>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>>> re:
> >>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rob, take a look at :
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> >>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
> >>>>
> >>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
> >>>> quoted above after you see that page.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> >>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
> >>>>
> >>>> Progress demands fast change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> >>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Juan T. Llibre
> >>>> ASP.NET MVP
> >>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
> >>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >>>> ======================
> >>>>
> >>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learningcurve, but so
> >>>>>far I've had to learn:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> HTML
> >>>>> XML
> >>>>> JavaScript
> >>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> >>>>> .NET Framework
> >>>>> ADO.NET
> >>>>> SSL
> >>>>> FormAuthentication
> >>>>> (and probably a few more things)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
> >>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
> >>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
> >>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead isstaggering!! So
> >>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
> >>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
> >>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
> >>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up
> >>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
> >>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
> >>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away
> >>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
> >>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET yourbound to MS
> >>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
> >>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms??
> >>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
> >>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't-- so the
> >>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rob.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
And YOU managed to miss Rob's point very well. He clearly stated he doesn't
even know if an ideal platform exists. But he seems to have enough faith in
Microsoft hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.

Rob has some very valid points here and - especially with MS's customer base
- they'd benefit from introducing a more ColdFusion-like RAD web platform.
Save the XML and SOAP and CodeBehind and ViewStates, etc. for Amazon-type
sites. Most developers can get by on a lighter-weight platform.

"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:

> You managed to evade the question very well.
> The question is :
> > What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
> Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?
> What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?
> Is that too difficult a question ?
> Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?
> Please answer.
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:e5JBN3yhFHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
> > re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve the
> > tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see there
> > is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly a
> > great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
> > But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version 3.1
> > due out this holiday season ;)
> > Rob.
> > "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:emmKVvyhFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> Your objections are acknowledged.
> >>
> >> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Juan T. Llibre
> >> ASP.NET MVP
> >> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> >> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >> ======================
> >>
> >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>> Juan,
> >>>
> >>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed languages
> >>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
> >>> application development), no.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of change
> >>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you point
> >>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with .NET.
> >>> Your sending a confusing message.
> >>>
> >>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me NO
> >>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
> >>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality. All
> >>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
> >>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
> >>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
> >>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
> >>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
> >>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language. Sure
> >>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world any
> >>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and someone
> >>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of affairs.
> >>>
> >>> Rob.
> >>>
> >>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >>>> re:
> >>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rob, take a look at :
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> >>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
> >>>>
> >>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
> >>>> quoted above after you see that page.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> >>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
> >>>>
> >>>> Progress demands fast change.
> >>>>
> >>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> >>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Juan T. Llibre
> >>>> ASP.NET MVP
> >>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> >>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >>>> ======================
> >>>>
> >>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
> >>>>>far I've had to learn:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> HTML
> >>>>> XML
> >>>>> JavaScript
> >>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> >>>>> .NET Framework
> >>>>> ADO.NET
> >>>>> SSL
> >>>>> FormAuthentication
> >>>>> (and probably a few more things)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!! The
> >>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control on
> >>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the most
> >>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So
> >>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This
> >>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
> >>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is never
> >>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers up
> >>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream of
> >>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
> >>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get away
> >>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
> >>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
> >>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
> >>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing platforms??
> >>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like
> >>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
> >>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Rob.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
> Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics.

..Net Platform 2.0

> Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
> what
> I'm talkong about.

Odd. I thought Windows was the most prevalent platform in the world.
Remember, .Net and Java are NOT just for servers. But I don't use Linux, so
I guess I don't know what I'm talkong about.

> So the problem here is actually
> Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.

Um, who doesn't? Does Sun present their technologies as NOT being the best?
How about IBM? In fact, can you mention ONE company that advertises their
product as not being the best?

> It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
> what
> I say is rude) and whith SQL Server.

I wouldn't say "rude." "Silly" comes to mind.

> But .NET is just another language

And here I've always thought .Net was language neutral. Oh well. Live and
learn!

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
The sun never sets on
the Kingdom of Heaven

"Win948576" <Win948576@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:546E4100-6806-40FC-AE98-686FB865CFBE@.microsoft.com...
> Ok, read your "interesting" conversation. Pretty nice, really. But for a
> constructive thought you have to think longer. We all know there are just
> two
> platforms which have "legal" right to claim to be the platform of
> tomorrow,
> Java and .NET. Of course, .NET is a bit better because it had Java to
> learn
> from. That is what I read in most third party .NET documentations. But
> that's
> not the main problem here. .NET is better because of its properties,
> events,
> delegates and so on. Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics. Mono is
> doing
> a great job porting .NET to other platforms and Microsoft should be
> thankful.
> Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
> what
> I'm talkong about.
> I think Rob's problem is that Java, nor .NET offers true "productivity
> whithout hedache" programming. Java is totaly nowhere whith its MVC
> patterns,
> which only make things hard to code, and C# makes things worst because it
> spoiles all expectancies of being the "one perfect language" we all heard
> about the way Microsoft presents it. So the problem here is actually
> Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
> It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
> what
> I say is rude) and whith SQL Server. Oh, and even with Visual Studio. I am
> not complaining just to complain. But .NET is just another language - why
> then it is presented as being the best? I repeat, I AM a .NET coder, I DO
> like .NET better than Java because of its events and properties, but I
> would
> expect more.
I'm not going to argue this beyond this post.

My point is that he was requesting that Microsoft do what
clearly is beyond Microsoft's, or any other company's, reach.

To request that Microsoft, or any other company, unify
HTML, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, and a bunch of other
standards into a "Common Language Development"
and a "Common Language Framework" is, simply, nuts.

I'd like to see Sun attempt that,
or see the Open Source community and IBM attempt that.

re:
> But he seems to have enough faith in Microsoft
> hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.

Not in the terms in which he expressed his "request".
To comply with such a request is impossible.

The DOJ and the EU's anti-monopoly commision would breathe
fire down the neck of any company which tried to do that.

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"Ben" <Ben@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:794C82F6-EEBA-4923-BFD7-60E311EBC15D@.microsoft.com...
> And YOU managed to miss Rob's point very well. He clearly stated he doesn't
> even know if an ideal platform exists. But he seems to have enough faith in
> Microsoft hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.
> Rob has some very valid points here and - especially with MS's customer base
> - they'd benefit from introducing a more ColdFusion-like RAD web platform.
> Save the XML and SOAP and CodeBehind and ViewStates, etc. for Amazon-type
> sites. Most developers can get by on a lighter-weight platform.
>
> "Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
>> You managed to evade the question very well.
>>
>> The question is :
>> > What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
>>
>> Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?
>>
>> What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?
>>
>> Is that too difficult a question ?
>>
>> Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?
>>
>> Please answer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Juan T. Llibre
>> ASP.NET MVP
>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> ======================
>>
>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:e5JBN3yhFHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
>> > re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve
>> > the
>> > tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see
>> > there
>> > is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly
>> > a
>> > great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
>>> > But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version
>> > 3.1
>> > due out this holiday season ;)
>>> > Rob.
>>> > "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:emmKVvyhFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >> Your objections are acknowledged.
>> >>
>> >> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Juan T. Llibre
>> >> ASP.NET MVP
>> >> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> >> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> >> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> >> ======================
>> >>
>> >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >>> Juan,
>> >>>
>> >>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
>> >>> languages
>> >>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
>> >>> application development), no.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of
>> >>> change
>> >>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you
>> >>> point
>> >>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with
>> >>> .NET.
>> >>> Your sending a confusing message.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me
>> >>> NO
>> >>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
>> >>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality.
>> >>> All
>> >>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
>> >>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
>> >>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
>> >>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
>> >>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
>> >>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
>> >>> Sure
>> >>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world
>> >>> any
>> >>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and
>> >>> someone
>> >>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of
>> >>> affairs.
>> >>>
>> >>> Rob.
>> >>>
>> >>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> >>>> re:
>> >>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Rob, take a look at :
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
>> >>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
>> >>>> quoted above after you see that page.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
>> >>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Progress demands fast change.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
>> >>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Juan T. Llibre
>> >>>> ASP.NET MVP
>> >>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
>> >>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
>> >>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
>> >>>> ======================
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> >>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
>> >>>>>far I've had to learn:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> HTML
>> >>>>> XML
>> >>>>> JavaScript
>> >>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>> >>>>> .NET Framework
>> >>>>> ADO.NET
>> >>>>> SSL
>> >>>>> FormAuthentication
>> >>>>> (and probably a few more things)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!!
>> >>>>> The
>> >>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control
>> >>>>> on
>> >>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the
>> >>>>> most
>> >>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!!
>> >>>>> So
>> >>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful.
>> >>>>> This
>> >>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
>> >>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is
>> >>>>> never
>> >>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers
>> >>>>> up
>> >>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream
>> >>>>> of
>> >>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
>> >>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get
>> >>>>> away
>> >>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
>> >>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
>> >>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
>> >>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing
>> >>>>> platforms??
>> >>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's
>> >>>>> like
>> >>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
>> >>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Rob.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>>>>
>>
>
I agree that it did get a little out of hand when the thread was taken to the
point of the 'one unified language' thing. But look at ColdFusion as a great
example. They combined HTML with their server side markup language CFML very
fluidly.

I'm a lil rusty but the syntax was something like:

<cfquery name="getCustomers" datasource="myDSN">
SELECT *
FROM CUSTOMERS
</cfquery
<table>
<tr><td>Name</td><td>Phone</td></tr>
<cfloop query="getCustomers">
<tr><td>#Name#</td><td>#Phone#</td></tr>
</cfloop>
</table>
</cfloop
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:

> I'm not going to argue this beyond this post.
> My point is that he was requesting that Microsoft do what
> clearly is beyond Microsoft's, or any other company's, reach.
> To request that Microsoft, or any other company, unify
> HTML, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, and a bunch of other
> standards into a "Common Language Development"
> and a "Common Language Framework" is, simply, nuts.
> I'd like to see Sun attempt that,
> or see the Open Source community and IBM attempt that.
> re:
> > But he seems to have enough faith in Microsoft
> > hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.
> Not in the terms in which he expressed his "request".
> To comply with such a request is impossible.
> The DOJ and the EU's anti-monopoly commision would breathe
> fire down the neck of any company which tried to do that.
>
>
> Juan T. Llibre
> ASP.NET MVP
> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> ======================
> "Ben" <Ben@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:794C82F6-EEBA-4923-BFD7-60E311EBC15D@.microsoft.com...
> > And YOU managed to miss Rob's point very well. He clearly stated he doesn't
> > even know if an ideal platform exists. But he seems to have enough faith in
> > Microsoft hearing and maybe even realizing a thing or two.
> > Rob has some very valid points here and - especially with MS's customer base
> > - they'd benefit from introducing a more ColdFusion-like RAD web platform.
> > Save the XML and SOAP and CodeBehind and ViewStates, etc. for Amazon-type
> > sites. Most developers can get by on a lighter-weight platform.
> > "Juan T. Llibre" wrote:
> >> You managed to evade the question very well.
> >>
> >> The question is :
> >> > What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
> >>
> >> Or, are you only focused on bitching about MS ?
> >>
> >> What/who is doing the job better than MS's platform is doing ?
> >>
> >> Is that too difficult a question ?
> >>
> >> Or, do you aim to be recognized as the troll you were accused of being ?
> >>
> >> Please answer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Juan T. Llibre
> >> ASP.NET MVP
> >> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> >> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >> ======================
> >>
> >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> news:e5JBN3yhFHA.3436@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> > No more alternatives -- just get MS to freakin' pick one and stay with it -- stop
> >> > re-inventing the wheel every 5 years that does more or less the same thing. Evolve
> >> > the
> >> > tool, stop dumping it and starting from scratch again -- the only message I see
> >> > there
> >> > is that MS got lost and their "code re-use" went out the door -- which isn't exactly
> >> > a
> >> > great selling point for their lastest and great new tools.
> >> >> > But I am waiting for the hard back version of "How Microsoft got lost" -- version
> >> > 3.1
> >> > due out this holiday season ;)
> >> >> > Rob.
> >> >> > "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:emmKVvyhFHA.2852@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >> >> Your objections are acknowledged.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you suggest as an alternate platform ?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Juan T. Llibre
> >> >> ASP.NET MVP
> >> >> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >> >> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> >> >> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >> >> ======================
> >> >>
> >> >> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:O%23lgVnyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >>> Juan,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
> >> >>> languages
> >> >>> are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but important to RAD (rapid
> >> >>> application development), no.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake of
> >> >>> change
> >> >>> OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do find it funny you
> >> >>> point
> >> >>> out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic that can now be used with
> >> >>> .NET.
> >> >>> Your sending a confusing message.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it does me
> >> >>> NO
> >> >>> good to learned several new languages all of which are simply different syntaxs (or
> >> >>> exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to turn concepts into reality.
> >> >>> All
> >> >>> languages ultimately do the same thing and people argue for days that language X is
> >> >>> better than language Y, but the reality is most good developers just want the best
> >> >>> tool available that is easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a
> >> >>> developer, I don't mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it --
> >> >>> businesses can't afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad
> >> >>> language which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
> >> >>> Sure
> >> >>> it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the business world
> >> >>> any
> >> >>> good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of 90 languages long and
> >> >>> someone
> >> >>> is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it is really a pretty sad state of
> >> >>> affairs.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Rob.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> >> >>>> re:
> >> >>>>> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server OS.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Rob, take a look at :
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> >> >>>> for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> You may have to reconsider your statement
> >> >>>> quoted above after you see that page.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> >> >>>> steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Progress demands fast change.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> >> >>>> except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Juan T. Llibre
> >> >>>> ASP.NET MVP
> >> >>>> http://asp.net.do/foros/
> >> >>>> Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> >> >>>> Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> >> >>>> ======================
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> >> >>>> news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >> >>>>>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve, but so
> >> >>>>>far I've had to learn:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> HTML
> >> >>>>> XML
> >> >>>>> JavaScript
> >> >>>>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> >> >>>>> .NET Framework
> >> >>>>> ADO.NET
> >> >>>>> SSL
> >> >>>>> FormAuthentication
> >> >>>>> (and probably a few more things)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is ridiculous!!
> >> >>>>> The
> >> >>>>> simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the enable state of a control
> >> >>>>> on
> >> >>>>> another ASPX page in a frame for example). And XML, OMG that has got to be the
> >> >>>>> most
> >> >>>>> ineffecient way to write out data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!!
> >> >>>>> So
> >> >>>>> far the research I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful.
> >> >>>>> This
> >> >>>>> is just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this bizarre
> >> >>>>> environment of languages and technology, then web application development is
> >> >>>>> never
> >> >>>>> going to mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get developers
> >> >>>>> up
> >> >>>>> to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the start. The pipe dream
> >> >>>>> of
> >> >>>>> using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY for web development is just
> >> >>>>> that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of applications could anyone get
> >> >>>>> away
> >> >>>>> with just those three technology/tools.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but the
> >> >>>>> bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS
> >> >>>>> server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of "portability" (at the cost of
> >> >>>>> performance) how often are you folks moving servers around and changing
> >> >>>>> platforms??
> >> >>>>> If platforms are changing that frequently, that begs the question why?! It's
> >> >>>>> like
> >> >>>>> building something for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the
> >> >>>>> majority have to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Rob.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Kevin Spencer wrote:
> > Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics.
> .Net Platform 2.0
> > Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
> > what
> > I'm talkong about.
> Odd. I thought Windows was the most prevalent platform in the world.
> Remember, .Net and Java are NOT just for servers.

Exactly the point, IMO. Stick with something that understands and
allows developers to implement what IS exactly intended for servers --
web servers!

> But I don't use Linux, so
> I guess I don't know what I'm talkong about.
> > So the problem here is actually
> > Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
> Um, who doesn't? Does Sun present their technologies as NOT being the best?
> How about IBM? In fact, can you mention ONE company that advertises their
> product as not being the best?

Sun presented its solution and kicked Microsoft's butt when Microsoft
tried to throw the monkey in the wrench for the sake of imposing its
own standards. But, yeah, you are right, I would present my stuff as
the best for xyz reason, too. Problem is, Microsoft's
if-we-can't-beat-em-we'll-buy-em approach stopped at the Sun door... at
the Netscape door... at the [awaiting the next contender -- looking
more and more and more like the developers of mySQL, PHP, anything Open
Source, etc.]. True developers that CAN advance technology (because
they are better/best) AND have long money for legal battles and
customer bases and can and will present their stuff as the best -- and
STILL maintain a respectable face in the business/tech-geek community.

Microsoft [anything] is a custom solution for people who do not want to
advance technology, but rather, want you to waste time (and money)
learning their syntax.

> > It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
> > what
> > I say is rude) and whith SQL Server.
> I wouldn't say "rude." "Silly" comes to mind.

I partially agree that the notion would be silly at this late date. It
would have been nice some time shortly after HTML was chosen as the
*standard* markup and Javascript came along to offer client-side speed
and functionality.

> > But .NET is just another language
> And here I've always thought .Net was language neutral. Oh well. Live and
> learn!

..Net is Microsoft's Java wannabe. Also, my marketing intuit tells me
that when .com extensions started running out, Microsoft simply tried
to capture the next most popular extension that would appeal to the
tech community. Glitz and glamour? Maybe... Pays the bills, but
don't see much new to learn exact syntax.

> --
> Kevin Spencer
> Microsoft MVP
> .Net Developer
> The sun never sets on
> the Kingdom of Heaven
> "Win948576" <Win948576@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:546E4100-6806-40FC-AE98-686FB865CFBE@.microsoft.com...
> > Ok, read your "interesting" conversation. Pretty nice, really. But for a
> > constructive thought you have to think longer. We all know there are just
> > two
> > platforms which have "legal" right to claim to be the platform of
> > tomorrow,
> > Java and .NET. Of course, .NET is a bit better because it had Java to
> > learn
> > from. That is what I read in most third party .NET documentations. But
> > that's
> > not the main problem here. .NET is better because of its properties,
> > events,
> > delegates and so on. Too bad it hasn't added alreadey generics. Mono is
> > doing
> > a great job porting .NET to other platforms and Microsoft should be
> > thankful.
> > Because whithout Mono, .NET wouldn't last. I am using Linux and I know
> > what
> > I'm talkong about.
> > I think Rob's problem is that Java, nor .NET offers true "productivity
> > whithout hedache" programming. Java is totaly nowhere whith its MVC
> > patterns,
> > which only make things hard to code, and C# makes things worst because it
> > spoiles all expectancies of being the "one perfect language" we all heard
> > about the way Microsoft presents it. So the problem here is actually
> > Microsoft's way of presenting things as being the best, when they are not.
> > It's the same policy applied with Windows (please excuse me if you think
> > what
> > I say is rude) and whith SQL Server. Oh, and even with Visual Studio. I am
> > not complaining just to complain. But .NET is just another language - why
> > then it is presented as being the best? I repeat, I AM a .NET coder, I DO
> > like .NET better than Java because of its events and properties, but I
> > would
> > expect more.
>"There has to be a better way to develop web applications."

Nope. Not really.

>"I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
>but so far I've had to learn:
>HTML
>XML
>JavaScript
>ASP.NET using VB.NET
>.NET Framework
>ADO.NET
>SSL
>FormAuthentication
>(and probably a few more things)

Way to go! Keep up the good work.

>"Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
>ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the

It sounds like you don't understand what you just said above: "I'm
learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve"

>enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
>XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
>ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
>"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
>development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
>languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
>mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.

But it has matured and become cost effective for most companies to
exploit.

>"This is NOT an efficient way to get work done --

I find that the speed and efficiency of any programming task is
*directly* tied to how skilled management is at organizing the whole
affair. Research agile programming or any number of other programming
strategies.

> just the cost to get developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a >project from the

This attitude strikes me as a little... well... spoiled. Who the heck
"gets the developers up to speed?" Certainly not most companies. In
every organization I've worked for the onus fell on the programmer to
sink or swim.

>start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
>for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
>applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.

asp.net is a huge umbrella, which makes me question how much you truly
know of it... Given "those three technology/tools," I could make damn
near any web app I wanted, regardless of complexity.

<snip
In summation: if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
Well FWIW, I have been reading this conv and wanted to put in my .02. I
guess like any technology, you need to appreciate the need to upgrade your
skills as a developer. But I agree with the general statements that the
learning curve porting anything to .NET is steep. MS does a great job of
providing resources for anyone trying to upgrade their skillset, the problem
is time. Unless your a large corp developer getting paid to upgrade your
skills, the upgrade is a lot more intimidating. I find it difficult to put a
full day in at work supporting vb6 and .asp apps, then try to burn another
3-4 hours a day trying to upgrade your skillset. It has nothing to do with
your proficiency as a developer.

"Roy" wrote:

> >"There has to be a better way to develop web applications."
> Nope. Not really.
> >"I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
> >but so far I've had to learn:
> >HTML
> >XML
> >JavaScript
> >ASP.NET using VB.NET
> >.NET Framework
> >ADO.NET
> >SSL
> >FormAuthentication
> >(and probably a few more things)
> Way to go! Keep up the good work.
> >"Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> >ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> It sounds like you don't understand what you just said above: "I'm
> learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve"
> >enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
> >XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
> >ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
> >"frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
> >development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> >languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
> >mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> But it has matured and become cost effective for most companies to
> exploit.
> >"This is NOT an efficient way to get work done --
> I find that the speed and efficiency of any programming task is
> *directly* tied to how skilled management is at organizing the whole
> affair. Research agile programming or any number of other programming
> strategies.
> > just the cost to get developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a >project from the
> This attitude strikes me as a little... well... spoiled. Who the heck
> "gets the developers up to speed?" Certainly not most companies. In
> every organization I've worked for the onus fell on the programmer to
> sink or swim.
> >start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
> >for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
> >applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.
> asp.net is a huge umbrella, which makes me question how much you truly
> know of it... Given "those three technology/tools," I could make damn
> near any web app I wanted, regardless of complexity.
> <snip>
> In summation: if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.
>
First of all ASP.Net does make our life simpler compared to the previous
methods of web programming. Also in the ASP.Net 1.x we have some annoyances
like we cannot post a form to a different url(*see note below). Microsoft can
never become a panacea of application development on Internet. Instead of
arguing about which technology is good, we need to focus on creating a
standard for server side technologies. This brings in a lot of advantages we
have right now with the client side HTML, Javascript, etc. Is there one
already which I am unaware of?
*: I want to run the form in server, I dont think it is possible even if
both the pages are inherited from the same class. Please excuse me if I dont
know how to do it officially in ASP.net.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:

> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning curve,
> but so far I've had to learn:
> HTML
> XML
> JavaScript
> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> ..NET Framework
> ADO.NET
> SSL
> FormAuthentication
> (and probably a few more things)
> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example). And
> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data I've
> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen are
> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if the
> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> languages and technology, then web application development is never going to
> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework ONLY
> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest of
> applications could anyone get away with just those three technology/tools.
> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around, but
> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something for
> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to take
> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> Rob.
>
re:
> we cannot post a form to a different url
> *: I want to run the form in server, I dont think it is possible

It should be possible, both in ASP.NET 1.1 as well as in 2.0 :

[Visual Basic]
Private Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load
Form1.Action = "Somepage.aspx"
End Sub

[C#]
private void Page_Load(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
Form1.Action = "Somepage.aspx";
}

Juan T. Llibre
ASP.NET MVP
http://asp.net.do/foros/
Foros de ASP.NET en Espaol
Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
======================

"balrag" <balrag@.discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in message news:F49A4179-DAAB-4CB6-88CE-890E0318F645@.microsoft.com...

> First of all ASP.Net does make our life simpler compared to the previous
> methods of web programming. Also in the ASP.Net 1.x we have some annoyances
> like we cannot post a form to a different url(*see note below). Microsoft can
> never become a panacea of application development on Internet. Instead of
> arguing about which technology is good, we need to focus on creating a
> standard for server side technologies. This brings in a lot of advantages we
> have right now with the client side HTML, Javascript, etc. Is there one
> already which I am unaware of?

> *: I want to run the form in server, I dont think it is possible even if
> both the pages are inherited from the same class. Please excuse me if I dont
> know how to do it officially in ASP.net.
I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.

This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
tabs - and start development.

So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
elements of what it takes to write applications.

As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
"hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
files from different computing environments.

HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.

Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.

I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
time to be a developer.

You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
enables them to make forward progress.

You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
are mutually exclusive.

>> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
>> curve,
>> but so far I've had to learn:
>>
>> HTML
>> XML
>> JavaScript
>> ASP.NET using VB.NET
>> ..NET Framework
>> ADO.NET
>> SSL
>> FormAuthentication
>> (and probably a few more things)
>>
>> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
>> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
>> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
>> And
>> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
>> I've
>> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
>> are
>> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
>> the
>> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
>> languages and technology, then web application development is never going
>> to
>> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
>>
>> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
>> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
>> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
>> ONLY
>> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
>> of
>> applications could anyone get away with just those three
>> technology/tools.
>>
>> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
>> but
>> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
>> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
>> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
>> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
>> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
>> for
>> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
>> take
>> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
>>
>> Rob.
>>
>>
>
The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger for
companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers),
the changing nature of technology in general.

The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If this
is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsoft
seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplace
by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.

Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT professionals
use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, by
design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This is
done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think again.
We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual people
who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation of
the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.

Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Adobe
and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have a
new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion /
J2EE anyone??). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.

If the development community as a whole demands that their be business value
in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
we're all going the "geek" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on the
block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owness
back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools.

"RCS" wrote:

> I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.
> This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
> time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
> out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
> tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
> initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
> extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
> was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
> tabs - and start development.
> So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
> to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
> matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
> it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
> elements of what it takes to write applications.
> As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
> file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
> today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
> text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
> your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
> "hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
> Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
> parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
> more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
> hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
> can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
> Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
> if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
> for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
> there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
> nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
> parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
> load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
> have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
> it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
> files from different computing environments.
> HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
> is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
> this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
> example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
> significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
> frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
> the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
> So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
> whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
> that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
> And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
> ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
> time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
> natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.
> Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
> write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
> ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
> FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
> because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
> your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
> if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
> MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
> embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
> become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.
> I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
> thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
> productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
> time to be a developer.
> You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
> never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
> is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
> bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
> open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
> accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
> solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
> for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
> enables them to make forward progress.
> You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
> system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
> any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
> are mutually exclusive.
>
> >> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
> >> curve,
> >> but so far I've had to learn:
> >>
> >> HTML
> >> XML
> >> JavaScript
> >> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> >> ..NET Framework
> >> ADO.NET
> >> SSL
> >> FormAuthentication
> >> (and probably a few more things)
> >>
> >> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> >> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> >> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
> >> And
> >> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
> >> I've
> >> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
> >> are
> >> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
> >> the
> >> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> >> languages and technology, then web application development is never going
> >> to
> >> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> >>
> >> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> >> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> >> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
> >> ONLY
> >> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
> >> of
> >> applications could anyone get away with just those three
> >> technology/tools.
> >>
> >> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
> >> but
> >> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
> >> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> >> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> >> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> >> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
> >> for
> >> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
> >> take
> >> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> >>
> >> Rob.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
"Juan T. Llibre" wrote:

> The DOJ and the EU's anti-monopoly commision would breathe
> fire down the neck of any company which tried to do that.

This is far and away the most pertinent post in this thread. To rephrase,
if you should dare to design a system that is so functional that it is
difficult if not impossible to compete against, the DOJ, many of the U.S.
states' attorney generals, and the EU's anti-monopoly commission will hand
you your head on a platter.

If those organizations had existed when God was creating the Earth, the
Earth wouldn't exist. Some of us would be frying on Mercury, some of us
would be struggling to breath on Mars, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Rob,

if you want to try non-MS version of the .net framework (Mono) without all
the hasle over installing and configuring then check http://www.monoppix.com.
Monoppix is fully configured mono system based on debian linux which you can
load from cd and test mono, asp.net, winforms etc etc. On the cd and on the
monoppix website you have also tutorials to help you get started.

grtz

Perica

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:

> Yes, I do actually like Serialization and use it more often.
> I didn't realize it was available for non-MS. Does the non-MS
> implementation ofer identical feature sets and is it stable? I haven't seen
> any hosting services that offer it or support it so I'd imagine it would be
> a manage in-house situation?
> I think the dev tools are a LONG way off from any real sense of
> "unification" -- VS 2005 doesn't appear to be much different, basically
> fixes and extends on things that should have been part of VS 2003.
> I'm sure it is a little better than it was with just ASP, but we're going on
> 5 years now and it feels like the dev tools just aren't progressing at a
> pace they should be to keep up with demand. RAD is what it is about and it
> really doesn't feel any fast today than it did 5 years ago.
> Rob.
> "Teemu Keiski" <joteke@.aspalliance.com> wrote in message
> news:eAYPg4xhFHA.1248@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Hello,
> > first of all. Using .NET and ASP.NET does not tie you to MS OS. There's
> > also open-source implementation for non-MS OS's
> > http://www.mono-project.com
> > Otherwise it is somewhat true. The term jungle has increased a lot,
> > however.NET is a effort to better as it ties APIs for these things
> > together in the Framework. If you try to do the same with previous
> > versions of MS technologies, you'd need to install tons of separate
> > libraries such as MSXML, MDAC (though .NET requires certain version too
> > but that usually exists with newer OS's).
> > Your example of XML being overhead is also true,. However there are
> > alternatives such as binary serialization, remoting etc etc. So iut's also
> > case.specific, not just always generally a problem.
> > It's a large topic to discuss but I understand the pain.
> > --
> > Teemu Keiski
> > ASP.NET MVP, AspInsider
> > Finland, EU
> > http://blogs.aspadvice.com/joteke
>
What exactly are you arguing here? Who cares what language you use. Visual
Studio allows you to drag and drop web controls and regular html controls
instead of manually writing the HTML. It checks for browser capabilities and
outputs HTML and javascript in the correct form AUTOMATICALLY. It maintains
page state AUTOMATICALLY. It allows you to bind data to controls which then
output to the page wihout even having to write a single loop statement.
Moving from ASP to ASP.net I have cut my development time in half, easily. I
don't understand your issue with interoperability either. If you can read
HTML over HTTP then you can interop with every operating system that is
Internet capable. I mean, what is XML? Its an extension of HTML. What is
SOAP, its just XML, which is just HTML. Technology is complicated. Try
being a mechanic or a doctor or a physicist.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:

> Juan,
> That is good, but think about what your just pointed out. 97% of the listed
> languages are used by <2% of the dev community -- flexible yes, but
> important to RAD (rapid application development), no.
> I have no problem with "Change", I do have a problem of change for the sake
> of change OR change to benefit the few but penalizes the majority. I do
> find it funny you point out a list of supported languages, some VERY archaic
> that can now be used with .NET. Your sending a confusing message.
> I don't care that I would need to learn A new language (as in one), but it
> does me NO good to learned several new languages all of which are simply
> different syntaxs (or exist to bridge the gap) that are ultimately used to
> turn concepts into reality. All languages ultimately do the same thing and
> people argue for days that language X is better than language Y, but the
> reality is most good developers just want the best tool available that is
> easiest to translate spec into code into reality -- as a developer, I don't
> mind learning a new language, just make sure that is it -- businesses can't
> afford to keep sending developers off to learn the lastest fad language
> which will go out of "favor" in a few years for the next "fad" language.
> Sure it maybe a money making scheme for Microsoft, but it doesn't do the
> business world any good. I mean, I see resumes all the time with a list of
> 90 languages long and someone is "proud" of that fact -- think about it, it
> is really a pretty sad state of affairs.
> Rob.
> "Juan T. Llibre" <nomailreplies@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:OibOqGyhFHA.2424@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > re:
> >> if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your bound to MS server
> >> OS.
> > Rob, take a look at :
> > http://www.dotnetpowered.com/languages.aspx
> > for a list of the languages/OS's which you can use with .Net.
> > You may have to reconsider your statement
> > quoted above after you see that page.
> > Sure, the learning curve is steep, but it's no more
> > steep than any other web platform's learning curve.
> > Progress demands fast change.
> > Complaining about the pace of change won't get you anywhere,
> > except to the place where archaic stuff is archived.
> > In any case, what do you suggest as an alternative ?
> > Juan T. Llibre
> > ASP.NET MVP
> > http://asp.net.do/foros/
> > Foros de ASP.NET en Espa?ol
> > Ven, y hablemos de ASP.NET...
> > ======================
> > "Rob R. Ainscough" <robains@.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:uwEe2LxhFHA.328@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >>I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
> >>curve, but so far I've had to learn:
> >>
> >> HTML
> >> XML
> >> JavaScript
> >> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> >> .NET Framework
> >> ADO.NET
> >> SSL
> >> FormAuthentication
> >> (and probably a few more things)
> >>
> >> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> >> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> >> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
> >> And XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out
> >> data I've ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research
> >> I've seen are "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is
> >> just crazy, if the development community has to continue on in this
> >> bizarre environment of languages and technology, then web application
> >> development is never going to mature and become cost effective for
> >> companies to exploit.
> >>
> >> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> >> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> >> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
> >> ONLY for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the
> >> simplest of applications could anyone get away with just those three
> >> technology/tools.
> >>
> >> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
> >> but the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET
> >> your bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> >> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> >> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> >> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
> >> for 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have
> >> to take the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> >>
> >> Rob.
> >>
> >>
>
I think it's common for people fear of change especially when they get comfy
of what they are doing.

New technologies are created to deal with new problems and requirements.

I think people are free not to use new technologies when they come out, if
you do not like new things then do not learn or use them, though free to bash
them as you like.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:

New technologies are created to deal with new problems and requirements.

I think people are free not to use new technologies when they come out, if
you do not like new things then do not learn or use them, though free to bash
them as you like.

"Rob R. Ainscough" wrote:

It's is my experience, 25+ yrs, that most developers will continue to
re-invent the wheel for each project. Remember, 'I don't know why he did
that but I can do it much better'. The oft used word 'reuse' is generally
thought to be reusing business objects, but I suggest the benfits of reuse
are really felt in reusing code bases and coding patterns, they are
repeatable therefore prompting reuse.

No and I mean no technology or application development will be productive
without interaction with the customer, understanding what they are asking for
and having them validate your design and implementation. The best thing a
developer can do to increase productivity, technology independent, is a good
design that is validated against use cases. I'm of the opinion that with
OOA/OOD you need to perform a 'standard' OOD then implement that design. It
will make the engineer more productive!!

What does this have to do with the technology discussion we have here? Many
of the issues that have been discussed can be overcome with design goals. In
other words, the design will determine which technology and how it is to be
developed.

Additionally, I have been developing, specifically, with MS technologies
since late 80s. At that time I came from the mainframe era and with the
coming of events, properties and object orientation I knew that a revolution
in development was on the horizon and still is with the advent of Object
oriented technologies. The speed with which development can occur has
increased many fold. In 2000 I designed and led the development of a 3M
project, for over 20K pensioners and their families paying out over 345M for
over two yrs. I did this with 5 developers and 4 SMEs; I would sure like to
see you do this with Java platform.

Despite what some has said on this post, .Net platform creation was not
developed based on Java, remember Java is a language not a platform. The JVM
and Java application servers are the platform. If you want to argue the
benefits of one language vs another I don't think you do that in the context
of the platform. if you will look at the
distributed architecture for both platforms you will discover how different
these two platforms are.

As was said, somewhere above, unless you get rid of W3, html, etc. aren't
going away and that is a good thing, no one company controls the standards.

Learning curve; .Net supports multiple languages not because of portability,
as was mentioned, but for reduced training costs to move into object oriented
programming. Do you think it is more expensive to teach a cobol developer to
code C# or have the cobol developer us the .Net version of cobol? This makes
a better case for this platform rather than a platform that locks a developer
into one language, now that is control; anyway portability in Java is a
misnomer. Every platform u go to has a different JVM and different
application server, all of these require complier changes to run on that
platform and some designs changes

Since I was using VB6 in an object oriented way my trip to dotnet wasn't a
huge learning curve, I already understood object orientation and how to use
it. Example, use callback in VB6 and use delegates with events in .Net to
have callback capability, Remoting replaced DCOM, is that a bad thing, no it
is not, it did improve on the way DCOM worked, primarily allowing remote
communication thru a firewall.

As of this writing I can't think of very many things that I can't do with
..Net whether or not it is C# (or come other language), asp.net, etc. .Net
gives me access to windows APIs which means I can do anything the windows
server will allow me to do.
I'm sorry but imho, this thread is much to do about nothing; with the
exception that it allows the religous among us to prostalize about our
beliefs of which languages are better. Engineers should worry how do I apply
the technology rather than the state of the development world. It is like
abortion, everyone has their opinion so we never come to completion or
agreement.

Regarding productivity in VS: I use two add-ins to add additional
functionality to VS that is useful and adds to VS' already awesome IDE. The
first is from JetBrains and is called ReSharper and their profiler, sorry but
I don't remember that name. the other product has to do with my architectual
duties (design) and it is visual-paradigm's SDE, software development
environment. It allows me to do a complete OOA/OOD and have it generate
code, even code with implementation in it. You can reverse engineer to keep
your model uptodate and you can regenerate and not impact your
implementation. This capability gives a developer the capability to keep
technical specs uptodate with code.

Regarding the '90' languages on a resume. I'm one of those who has multiple
languages on his resume and it is not that I have used many languages but
demostrates to the interviewer that I can go into many environments and pick
up and understand what is going easier than those who haven 't experienced
such varied environments. It is not a matter of numbers, maybe I have been
interviewing more than most of you, after all I'm a consultant, but this info
is very valuable in getting interviews.

"Christopher Hansen" wrote:

> The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger for
> companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers),
> the changing nature of technology in general.
> The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
> By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
> implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If this
> is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
> vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsoft
> seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplace
> by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.
> Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
> that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
> concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
> heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
> super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
> cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT professionals
> use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, by
> design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This is
> done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think again.
> We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
> Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual people
> who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation of
> the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
> disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
> business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.
> Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
> something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
> finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Adobe
> and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
> finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have a
> new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
> tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion /
> J2EE anyone??). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.
> If the development community as a whole demands that their be business value
> in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
> then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
> hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
> we're all going the "geek" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on the
> block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
> software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owness
> back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools.
>
> "RCS" wrote:
> > I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.
> > This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
> > time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
> > out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
> > tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
> > initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
> > extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
> > was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
> > tabs - and start development.
> > So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
> > to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
> > matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
> > it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
> > elements of what it takes to write applications.
> > As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
> > file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
> > today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
> > text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
> > your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
> > "hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
> > Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
> > parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
> > more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
> > hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
> > can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
> > Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
> > if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
> > for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
> > there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
> > nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
> > parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
> > load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
> > have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
> > it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
> > files from different computing environments.
> > HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
> > is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
> > this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
> > example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
> > significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
> > frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
> > the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
> > So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
> > whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
> > that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
> > And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
> > ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
> > time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
> > natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.
> > Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
> > write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
> > ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
> > FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
> > because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
> > your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
> > if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
> > MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
> > embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
> > become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.
> > I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
> > thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
> > productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
> > time to be a developer.
> > You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
> > never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
> > is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
> > bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
> > open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
> > accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
> > solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
> > for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
> > enables them to make forward progress.
> > You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
> > system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
> > any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
> > are mutually exclusive.
> > >> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
> > >> curve,
> > >> but so far I've had to learn:
> > >>
> > >> HTML
> > >> XML
> > >> JavaScript
> > >> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> > >> ..NET Framework
> > >> ADO.NET
> > >> SSL
> > >> FormAuthentication
> > >> (and probably a few more things)
> > >>
> > >> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> > >> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> > >> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
> > >> And
> > >> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
> > >> I've
> > >> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
> > >> are
> > >> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
> > >> the
> > >> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> > >> languages and technology, then web application development is never going
> > >> to
> > >> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> > >>
> > >> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> > >> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> > >> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
> > >> ONLY
> > >> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
> > >> of
> > >> applications could anyone get away with just those three
> > >> technology/tools.
> > >>
> > >> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
> > >> but
> > >> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
> > >> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> > >> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> > >> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> > >> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
> > >> for
> > >> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
> > >> take
> > >> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> > >>
> > >> Rob.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
Thank you cbwardsr!!

As I read through this thread I felt something was missing, was not sure if
I was missing some point or concept, but it didn't feel like anyone was
getting to the root. There were a couple of posts that eluded to it; but I
feel that yours put into words what I felt the best.

It's not always a question of having to learn the latest new language or
even platform. It has to do with "can I accomplish what I need to with the
toolset that I have at my disposal." It's nice to know everything but not
necessary. And if your learning something just because it is the latest I
question why your doing it.

I've worked for a company that continues to always be a day late and a
dollar short on the cutting edge of technology but for what they were trying
to accomplish they had the right tools for what they needed. I tried to
explain how OO methodologies would improve development cycles and patterns
would lead to reuse, but the managers at the time did not see it. Even now
one manager still feels VB is not a programmers language, I guess it has to
be C++ and only C++ (not sure if he even knows what .NET is). But for
developing business applications/tools, VB is way more productive language
than any "programmer languages" that I've had the pleasure of learning
(including Java). Looking back I understand why they didn't want to go down
the OO path at the time. It was new and had a cost that they could not
justify. But they're going down that road now and to them it's justified as
they are pulling together their global business processes.

Anyways, I don't want to ramble and I hope I've stayed on topic. I just want
to say that web development is as complex as you want to make it. If you
don't want complex and can live with a tool such as Coldfusion, all the power
to you. If you need to be on the cutting edge, for what ever reason, then
understand that; yes it is a steep learning curve and yes you will need to
learn every tom dick and harry language, standard, and platform so you can
make solid choices on the path you take to developement. This is one thing
that I think Rob is missing the point on. No one company has the ability to
drive the web to a single development source.

BTW I do all my personal development with .NET (since I love the platform)
and I work with (almost) everything else on the job (excluding .NET).

"cbwardsr" wrote:

> I have been reading this thread with some interest but also noting that in
> the context being discussed all of the arguements are on technology and not
> on how to use the technology to increase productivity and to provide value to
> our customers. Maybe that sounds strange to some of u, but as a MS Architect
> I know this to be true and I've seen it on so many projects.
> It's is my experience, 25+ yrs, that most developers will continue to
> re-invent the wheel for each project. Remember, 'I don't know why he did
> that but I can do it much better'. The oft used word 'reuse' is generally
> thought to be reusing business objects, but I suggest the benfits of reuse
> are really felt in reusing code bases and coding patterns, they are
> repeatable therefore prompting reuse.
> No and I mean no technology or application development will be productive
> without interaction with the customer, understanding what they are asking for
> and having them validate your design and implementation. The best thing a
> developer can do to increase productivity, technology independent, is a good
> design that is validated against use cases. I'm of the opinion that with
> OOA/OOD you need to perform a 'standard' OOD then implement that design. It
> will make the engineer more productive!!
> What does this have to do with the technology discussion we have here? Many
> of the issues that have been discussed can be overcome with design goals. In
> other words, the design will determine which technology and how it is to be
> developed.
> Additionally, I have been developing, specifically, with MS technologies
> since late 80s. At that time I came from the mainframe era and with the
> coming of events, properties and object orientation I knew that a revolution
> in development was on the horizon and still is with the advent of Object
> oriented technologies. The speed with which development can occur has
> increased many fold. In 2000 I designed and led the development of a 3M
> project, for over 20K pensioners and their families paying out over 345M for
> over two yrs. I did this with 5 developers and 4 SMEs; I would sure like to
> see you do this with Java platform.
> Despite what some has said on this post, .Net platform creation was not
> developed based on Java, remember Java is a language not a platform. The JVM
> and Java application servers are the platform. If you want to argue the
> benefits of one language vs another I don't think you do that in the context
> of the platform. if you will look at the
> distributed architecture for both platforms you will discover how different
> these two platforms are.
> As was said, somewhere above, unless you get rid of W3, html, etc. aren't
> going away and that is a good thing, no one company controls the standards.
> Learning curve; .Net supports multiple languages not because of portability,
> as was mentioned, but for reduced training costs to move into object oriented
> programming. Do you think it is more expensive to teach a cobol developer to
> code C# or have the cobol developer us the .Net version of cobol? This makes
> a better case for this platform rather than a platform that locks a developer
> into one language, now that is control; anyway portability in Java is a
> misnomer. Every platform u go to has a different JVM and different
> application server, all of these require complier changes to run on that
> platform and some designs changes
> Since I was using VB6 in an object oriented way my trip to dotnet wasn't a
> huge learning curve, I already understood object orientation and how to use
> it. Example, use callback in VB6 and use delegates with events in .Net to
> have callback capability, Remoting replaced DCOM, is that a bad thing, no it
> is not, it did improve on the way DCOM worked, primarily allowing remote
> communication thru a firewall.
> As of this writing I can't think of very many things that I can't do with
> .Net whether or not it is C# (or come other language), asp.net, etc. .Net
> gives me access to windows APIs which means I can do anything the windows
> server will allow me to do.
> I'm sorry but imho, this thread is much to do about nothing; with the
> exception that it allows the religous among us to prostalize about our
> beliefs of which languages are better. Engineers should worry how do I apply
> the technology rather than the state of the development world. It is like
> abortion, everyone has their opinion so we never come to completion or
> agreement.
> Regarding productivity in VS: I use two add-ins to add additional
> functionality to VS that is useful and adds to VS' already awesome IDE. The
> first is from JetBrains and is called ReSharper and their profiler, sorry but
> I don't remember that name. the other product has to do with my architectual
> duties (design) and it is visual-paradigm's SDE, software development
> environment. It allows me to do a complete OOA/OOD and have it generate
> code, even code with implementation in it. You can reverse engineer to keep
> your model uptodate and you can regenerate and not impact your
> implementation. This capability gives a developer the capability to keep
> technical specs uptodate with code.
> Regarding the '90' languages on a resume. I'm one of those who has multiple
> languages on his resume and it is not that I have used many languages but
> demostrates to the interviewer that I can go into many environments and pick
> up and understand what is going easier than those who haven 't experienced
> such varied environments. It is not a matter of numbers, maybe I have been
> interviewing more than most of you, after all I'm a consultant, but this info
> is very valuable in getting interviews.
> "Christopher Hansen" wrote:
> > The problem is multi-faceted. Disparate technology platforms, the hunger for
> > companies to have loyal followers( read: internal champions and customers),
> > the changing nature of technology in general.
> > The problem with the concept of RAD is that, frankly, it's never happened.
> > By that I mean, RAD dictates that your engineers, developers, architects,
> > implementation and support people are already a well-oiled machine. If this
> > is the case, then you don't necessarily need to standardize on any single
> > vendor platform - it could be anything. But practically speaking, Microsoft
> > seems to have a major foothold in the server / web development marketplace
> > by virture of the fact that IIS 6.0 comes bundled for free with WS03.
> > Another obesrvation in terms of the technological learning / use curve is
> > that RARELY does a program manager / client / project have a clear and
> > concise framework around what THEY want to achieve. How many times have I
> > heard "I'd like a Button that I can click...(that will essentially run my
> > super-complex business/role). That's certainly contributes to
> > cross-pollenating across 15 different technology iterations. IT professionals
> > use whatever is in the toolbox to get the job done. More often than not, by
> > design, the products (even freebies) are inter-related and dependent. This is
> > done to drive business. If you think tht this is all just R&D - think again.
> > We (sic.) are being led in a very specific direction, one bite at a time.
> > Companies are the ones that are forced to absorb the "hit"; the actual people
> > who suffer are the IT professionals who see the pervasive interpretation of
> > the business community at large of their roles as hemmoraging expenses and
> > disfunctional agents of change. This is precisely why some 50% of the
> > business community was still using WIndows NT 4.0 as of 2 years ago.
> > Software comapnies (and hence developers) need to slow down and put out
> > something that has some serious meat to it - and stick with it. I mean a
> > finished product. Good examples of this busines model can be found with Adobe
> > and Macromedia - both of whom are th only companies I see as having pushed
> > finsihed products suites. You'll notice, as a result, that they don't have a
> > new version every 18 months. What they have currently rocks, needs little
> > tweakage, and it essentially a customizable, scalable platform (ColdFusion /
> > J2EE anyone??). This are highly under-rated technologies, imo.
> > If the development community as a whole demands that their be business value
> > in requiring our time to absorb/use/champion the use of new technologies,
> > then it will require software manufacturers to make better products - and
> > hence, stop wasting our time (as in the original poster's commentary). If
> > we're all going the "geek" path of the newest, latest, greatest "toys" on the
> > block (e,g, software, tools, etc.) then there's no substantial reason for
> > software manufacturers to hold to the aforementioned model. I put the owness
> > back on us as developers and champions of our individual talents and tools.
> > "RCS" wrote:
> > > I don't know if you're serious - but I'll respond anyhow.
> > > > This is like anything else you'd do with programming - you have to take some
> > > time, to set up some templates/standards/etc - so that you can later "crank
> > > out" applications with ease. We needed to do the same thing with a sort of a
> > > tab/subtab layout - that we've used for the past 6+ years in ASP. We
> > > initially spent about 4 months making a tabbed-type layout that was
> > > extensible and integrated with our single-signon.. so that after that, it
> > > was a matter of making up a logo, changing the CSS classes, layout your
> > > tabs - and start development.
> > > > So - these technologies aren't so much the enemy - as they are your friend -
> > > to help you do your job. And it only behooves you to know these. It doesn't
> > > matter if it were big technology called "Bob" with 8 sub-categories - or if
> > > it's called 8 different names. The things you mentioned below are the
> > > elements of what it takes to write applications.
> > > > As for XML overhead - I think you have have needed to come through the "flat
> > > file" era of computing to see the advantage. For years (and sadly, still
> > > today) - companies pass text files (like comma-seperated or tab-seperated
> > > text files) back and forth. Think about this. How do you get that data into
> > > your database? Well - most would start by writing a parser - to turn those
> > > "hopefully it's the right format" file, into meaningful database fields.
> > > Most people write what I call a "write-once/use-once" parser. You write a
> > > parser specific to that file. You could obviously also spend time making a
> > > more flexible parser, but it needs to be robust. The core problem with a
> > > hand-written parser is that it not only needs to handle all the things you
> > > can think of... it also needs to handle the things you can't think of.
> > > Like - what if you get an end-of-file right in the middle of a record.. what
> > > if there is text in the presumed date/time field.. etc, etc, etc, etc. So
> > > for people who lived through that headache - XML is just staggering. Yes -
> > > there is a little bit of size overhead (not that it matters in these days of
> > > nearly unlimited RAM and disk space) - but there is one parser. The XML
> > > parser. Which, right off the bat - if it's not valid XML, it won't even
> > > load!! Then, you can apply a schema - and XML will check to make sure you
> > > have "exactly one" of these elements and one or more of these elements. So
> > > it's become an infinitely more efficient way to process foreign files - and
> > > files from different computing environments.
> > > > HTML forms ARE bad. Especially in an ASP.NET environment. The main reason,
> > > is that it becomes very difficult to keep "user state". That is, "who is
> > > this user and exaclty what are they doing". Which, on a single ASP page for
> > > example, is 100% controllable. If you have frames, it would take a
> > > significant chunk of work - to tell the navigation frame if the current
> > > frame is doing anything that should make the navigation change. Because -
> > > the navigation has absolutely-no-idea what is going on in the other frames.
> > > So it's a false sense of integration - it looks like the frames make up a
> > > whole website - but really, it's a couple of completely unrelated pages -
> > > that if you wanted to make them related - would take a significant effort.
> > > And if you are in a situation where you want to "post" to another page in
> > > ASP.NET - I wouldn't spend my time trying to make it work, I would spend my
> > > time thinking *why* I am trying to do that, and see if there is a more
> > > natural way to accomplish what I am trying to do.
> > > > Lastly, you say it's a pipedream to use ASP.NET and the .NET Framework to
> > > write applications. First, the .NET Framework is what houses the logic for
> > > ASP.NET, XML, VB.NET, ADO.NET (are they still calling it that?) and
> > > FormAuthentication. But dare I say, you almost don't need to know HTML,
> > > because the design editors are so good now - and you can even drag-and-drop
> > > your database connection/command/etc and technically not do any coding. So
> > > if you are looking for the "good-old-days of point-n-click development" like
> > > MS-Access/VB3/VB6, they've made room for you in VS.NET. But if you want to
> > > embrace these new technologies and use them to leverage your development and
> > > become a more efficient developer, they've done that too.
> > > > I've been in hip-deep in .NET since it came out and I have two consistent
> > > thoughts: 1) .NET is the biggest leap in software development and developer
> > > productivity that I've ever seen (see comment below) and 2) This is a great
> > > time to be a developer.
> > > > You could argue the first one, that "Java has been around for years and
> > > never got the recognition!". Well, .NET is about the technology (and yes, C#
> > > is pretty much Java) - but it's also about how it's
> > > bundled/sold/trained/etc.. Because the Java people are so caught up in being
> > > open and not locking down developers - they became so open that they can't
> > > accomplish anything. So yes, Microsofts solution is a boxed/shrink-wrapped
> > > solution and they do force the developer to use one tool, etc... but it's
> > > for his own good, because forcing everyone to limit the tools they use,
> > > enables them to make forward progress.
> > > > You can either run on one system, and become an advanced, proprietary
> > > system... or you can be an open system, and spend all your time NOT using
> > > any one thing that limits you. In the end, open-systems and forward-progress
> > > are mutually exclusive.
> > > > > >> I realize I'm learning web development and there is a STEEP learning
> > > >> curve,
> > > >> but so far I've had to learn:
> > > >>
> > > >> HTML
> > > >> XML
> > > >> JavaScript
> > > >> ASP.NET using VB.NET
> > > >> ..NET Framework
> > > >> ADO.NET
> > > >> SSL
> > > >> FormAuthentication
> > > >> (and probably a few more things)
> > > >>
> > > >> Now call me crazy, but this hog pog of languages & technologies is
> > > >> ridiculous!! The simplest of tasks become major R&D efforts (setting the
> > > >> enable state of a control on another ASPX page in a frame for example).
> > > >> And
> > > >> XML, OMG that has got to be the most ineffecient way to write out data
> > > >> I've
> > > >> ever seen -- the overhead is staggering!! So far the research I've seen
> > > >> are
> > > >> "frames are evil" -- great so freakin' helpful. This is just crazy, if
> > > >> the
> > > >> development community has to continue on in this bizarre environment of
> > > >> languages and technology, then web application development is never going
> > > >> to
> > > >> mature and become cost effective for companies to exploit.
> > > >>
> > > >> This is NOT an efficient way to get work done -- just the cost to get
> > > >> developers up to speed on all the technology can doom a project from the
> > > >> start. The pipe dream of using ASP.NET with VB.NET and .NET framework
> > > >> ONLY
> > > >> for web development is just that -- a pipe dream, for only the simplest
> > > >> of
> > > >> applications could anyone get away with just those three
> > > >> technology/tools.
> > > >>
> > > >> I just don't understand -- terms such as portability get tossed around,
> > > >> but
> > > >> the bottom line is, if you elect to use .NET Framework and ASP.NET your
> > > >> bound to MS server OS. And, if this is all done in the name of
> > > >> "portability" (at the cost of performance) how often are you folks moving
> > > >> servers around and changing platforms?? If platforms are changing that
> > > >> frequently, that begs the question why?! It's like building something
> > > >> for
> > > >> 5% that may need it while the majority don't -- so the majority have to
> > > >> take
> > > >> the penalty. There has got to be a better way?
> > > >>
> > > >> Rob.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
Some related thoughts:
1) It is simply not cost effective for any company to "start from
scratch" and rebuild everything with the latest and greatest
language/platform.
2) All technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses. To limit
yourself to one language/platform or another does not make good
business sense. Choose the technology based on your requirements.
3) With that said, interoperability has/will become an issue for all
businesses. Having an interoperability plan is key!
4) Web Services is the latest approach to interoperability, but it is
proving (like all technology) to have strengths and weaknesses.
5) What do you do when Web Services proves to be much too slow for your
requirements? What if your development team has no experience working
with WS and you have tight deadlines to meet? This is where other
interoperability approaches are needed, preferably ones that are easy
to implement and optimize performance. The following whitepaper
discusses your options for interoperability...
http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs...per_interop.pdf

Shane Sauer
J-Integra Interoperability Solutions
http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
When Web Services are not enough
Thanks for continuing the discussing, but I think you have gone down a rabbit
hole. Let me explain.

your 1) This is not something new, in my 25 yrs of IT work this challenge
is part of every decission to build or purchase and requires the same
attention as any analysis on projects direction. Consequently, I'm not
exactly sure how this applies to our discussion.

your 2) I don't disagree with your opinion however, it would be the
exception rather than the rule. Changing technologies or bringing in
competing technologies can have a very negative on the delivery of business
systems. In other words many large enterprises have or will make their
technology decisions not so much on technology but on the costs of
re-training and support costs for additional technologies. These costs are
not in-significant.

your 3) Sorry but I'm not sure the point you are trying to make here. This
has been apart of of enterprise architecture for many years.

your 4) This isn't anything new an architect is always making decissions
with these points in mind. The type of technology used doesn't have an
impact, the design and the implementation has much more impact.

your 5) See 4 above.

"j-integra_support@.intrinsyc.com" wrote:

> Some related thoughts:
> 1) It is simply not cost effective for any company to "start from
> scratch" and rebuild everything with the latest and greatest
> language/platform.
> 2) All technologies have their own strengths and weaknesses. To limit
> yourself to one language/platform or another does not make good
> business sense. Choose the technology based on your requirements.
> 3) With that said, interoperability has/will become an issue for all
> businesses. Having an interoperability plan is key!
> 4) Web Services is the latest approach to interoperability, but it is
> proving (like all technology) to have strengths and weaknesses.
> 5) What do you do when Web Services proves to be much too slow for your
> requirements? What if your development team has no experience working
> with WS and you have tight deadlines to meet? This is where other
> interoperability approaches are needed, preferably ones that are easy
> to implement and optimize performance. The following whitepaper
> discusses your options for interoperability...
> http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/pdfs...per_interop.pdf
> Shane Sauer
> J-Integra Interoperability Solutions
> http://j-integra.intrinsyc.com/
> When Web Services are not enough
>
I've read through about twenty or so of these interesting comments so
far and coincidentally, the last I've seen so far, #42, item 4 has
particular significance to me:

Having served in various roles in several development projects, I
believe the the most challenging obstacle in my teams has been to
define the program's logic; without this, I'm certain tools do not
matter. I've seen programmers (developers) do things that would
challenge roundly what .NET provides to us as a matter of course.

I come from a classic ASP/VB background -- with some Java in college --
and I relish change, technology, and the magic of programming. .NET has
not disappointed me.

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Themes not working sometimes.

Themes vs css?

Themes, Pages, and Master Pages

Themes, Pages, and Master Pages

Themes vs css?

Themes/Skins

Themes/Skins

Themes, Skins, and Masters

Themes/skins with multiple browsers

Themes/skins with multiple browsers

Theming custom created WebParts in ASP.NET 2.0

Thems and Templets.

Theory : How to implement an afilliate program website.

There are so many bugs in the template of "Time Track"

Server Error in '/Sample' Application.

Item has already been added. Key in dictionary: 'Id' Key being added: 'Id'

There can be only one page directive

There are too many people accessing the Web site at this time.

There has been an I/O Error: Error #2038 - The SaveAs method is configured to require a ro

There can be only one page directive.

There can be only one page directive

There has to be a better way to develop web applications.

There has to be a better way to develop web applications.

Thread Safety ASP NET

Blog Archive

About Me