WebMatrix

I've seen a couple of negative blog posts recently about WebMatrix and LightSwitch. See for example this post

Microsoft's WebMatrix - Why You Aren't Going To Use It

I don't think the criticism is entirely fair. It's all about diversity, providing an entry point and targetting as many people as possible.

The blog post above contrasts two examples, one in PHP and one in WebMatrix/C#.

First the PHP version

$xml = simplexml_load_file('http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo'); foreach ($xml->entry as $entry) { $media = $entry->children('http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/');
 $thumbnail = $media->group->thumbnail[1]; echo '<img src="' . $thumbnail->attributes()->{'url'} . '">'; }

Then the C# version

@using System.Xml @{ var xml = new XmlDocument(); xml.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); var nsmgr = new XmlNamespaceManager(xml.NameTable); nsmgr.AddNamespace("media",
 "http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"); foreach(XmlNode node in xml.SelectNodes("//media:thumbnail", nsmgr)) { Response.Write(string.Format("<img src="\"{0}\"">", node.Attributes["url"].Value)); } }

That's 7 lines of PHP vs 11 lines of C#*. The first thing to consider is the missing <? and ?> delimiters in the PHP example. That adds another two lines to the PHP example, so now we're up to 11 vs 9 lines of code.

Then there's the use of the old XML API in the C# version. That means namespace use looks horrible. We can simplify this with XLinq.

@using System.Xml.Linq @{ var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
 { Response.Write(string.Format("<img src='{0}'>", node.Attribute("url").Value)); } } 

So now the code is very simple. We've gone lower than PHP in line count (9 vs 8) and that's including a using directive.

It sounds to me like it's just as much about setting good examples.

What do you think? Is the criticism fair?

* There's some code formatting issue here so the code wraps unnecessarily, affecting line count.

Is this a LoC competition or something?

@using System.Xml.Linq
@{
 var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))  Response.Write(string.Format("<img src='{0}'>", node.Attribute("url").Value));  }   }

Bass said:

Is this a LoC competition or something?

 

@using System.Xml.Linq
@{
 var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))  Response.Write(string.Format("<img src='{0}'>", node.Attribute("url").Value));  }   }

Maybe - but only valid programs are accepted

@using System.Xml.Linq @{ var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
 Response.Write(string.Format("<img src='{0}'>", node.Attribute("url").Value)); }

Sliced off two more lines. PHP vs C# = 9 vs 6.

exoteric said:

Bass said:

*snip*

Maybe - but only valid programs are accepted

 

@using System.Xml.Linq @{ var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
 Response.Write(string.Format("<img src='{0}'>", node.Attribute("url").Value)); }

 

Sliced off two more lines. PHP vs C# = 9 vs 6.

Also, I gotta wonder why they're using response.write. Isn't the point of Razor that you can do this:

@using System.Xml.Linq
@{
  var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo");
  foreach(var node 
in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
    <img src="@node.Attribute("url").Value" />
}

Sven Groot said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

Also, I gotta wonder why they're using response.write. Isn't the point of Razor that you can do this:

 

@using System.Xml.Linq
@{
  var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo");
  foreach(var node 
in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
    <img src="@node.Attribute("url").Value" />
}

Yes, good point, and it now looks rediculously simpler than the equivalent PHP, even for this small piece of code.

Actually you need to enclose the line in braces because the whole code is already inside a code block @{ }, so:

@using System.Xml.Linq @{ var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
 {<img src="@node.Attribute("url").Value" /> } } 

exoteric said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Yes, good point, and it now looks rediculously simpler than the equivalent PHP, even for this small piece of code.

 

Actually you need to enclose the line in braces because the whole code is already inside a code block @{ }, so:

 

@using System.Xml.Linq @{ var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
 {<img src="@node.Attribute("url").Value" /> } } 

I've not had the opportunity to actually use Razor, so forgive me if my syntax isn't exactly right.

I fail to understand that article's criticisms. The only issue it seems to raise is that WebMatrix is more complex than PHP but the two blocks of code look equally complex to me. I'm also not addressing lines of code, because that has no relationship to complexity (almost a negative relationship in fact).

Before this post I didn't know much about WebMatrix, and after looking at their site I have very little interest in learning more. The main issue I see is that they've re-invented the wheel; it seems to do exactly what Web Developer 2010's default ASP.Net template does but with new pointless way of working.

If I met a student or someone new to ASP.Net I'd give them Web Developer before WebMatrix, and I know it is trying to bridge the gap and make getting into ASP.net even easier, but it seems like that bridge already exists and have existed since Web Developer 2008.

exoteric said:

Sven Groot said:

*snip*

Yes, good point, and it now looks rediculously simpler than the equivalent PHP, even for this small piece of code.

 

Actually you need to enclose the line in braces because the whole code is already inside a code block @{ }, so:

 

@using System.Xml.Linq @{ var xml = XDocument.Load("http://picasaweb.google.com/data/feed/base/user/114741487348646937381/albumid/5494564502704076449?kind=photo"); foreach(var node in xml.Descendants("{http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/}thumbnail"))
 {<img src="@node.Attribute("url").Value" /> } } 

And why not post this as a comment to the original authors post to set him straight. If he isn't corrected, his point stands and people will just accept that

Stebet said:

exoteric said:

*snip*

And why not post this as a comment to the original authors post to set him straight. If he isn't corrected, his point stands and people will just accept that

Done.

@Sven: That's fine, I just had it installed to try it out and that proved useful when testing the syntax.

@ManipUni: The most annoying thing is the lack of Intellisense - that's a pretty serious issue. Besides that it's a nice little tool for simple stuff. I still find the C# version simpler. Also, I find short is often better - but there are some kinds of short that are more akin to obfuscation, but that's a different thing.

exoteric said:

Stebet said:

*snip*

Done.

 

@Sven: That's fine, I just had it installed to try it out and that proved useful when testing the syntax.

 

@ManipUni: The most annoying thing is the lack of Intellisense - that's a pretty serious issue. Besides that it's a nice little tool for simple stuff. I still find the C# version simpler. Also, I find short is often better - but there are some kinds of short that are more akin to obfuscation, but that's a different thing.

Yeah, I can see the lack of intellisense being a BIG issue. I hope that is something they're actively working on. Call me paranoid but I hope this isn't ahead of them making Express Editions cost money.

One of these days I need to double check I'm not using C# Express illegally.

I quite like the WebMatix offering. It is not complete yet, like, I still go back to VS for real coding. But, the baseline structure of it is promising. Don't know how it really uesful yet. I am trying it, and no function declaration in CSHTML, which is kind of weird. I really like those Helper classes though.

It's a really silly comparison. Lines of code contest? Seriously?  Wait to you see what it would look like in C++ and MSXML.

The whole lines of code thing is nonsense. What isn't nonsense is that the Linq statement and foreach loop is way clearer and more readable than the PHP version.

CreamFilling512 said:

It's a really silly comparison. Lines of code contest? Seriously?  Wait to you see what it would look like in C++ and MSXML.

Yes, seriously!

Two sides of the same coin. Linq makes it short and readable. It's perhaps silly but I care about how many keystrokes it takes for me to express a solution to a problem, but I of course also care about how readable it is, which is more subjective.

I'm unfortunately also very familiar with how the code looks in MSXML; I've built abstraction layers on top of it in a very unexpressive environment (which shall remain anonymous here.)