I used to work on the Channel 9 dev team.

https://twitter.com/#!/shanselman/status/172044712230920193

http://hiddenpineapple.com/rowi/

If you're not into Twitter and/or WP7, please ignore my spam.

All, if you have any questions about ASP.NET Web Pages or Razor (or even WebMatrix), let me know.  I'm the PM for Web Pages and Razor.  Happy to answer Niners. 

magicalclick said:

A quick question,

Do I need a special .Net hoster for this? I have .Net4.0 hoster, but, it is not processing cshtml.

 

Thank you.

It should.  ASP.NET Web Pages is bin deployable.  Sounds like something isn't running that should.  Maybe ask about it over here: http://forums.asp.net/1224.aspx

magicalclick said:

HumanCompiler said:

*snip*

No, but, super thanks for the book. I really really needed it.

No problem. Happy to answer questions. There's also the forum.

magicalclick said:

Looks really cool. I am actually thinking about learning ASP .NET, and I don't know want to buy SQLDB, so the compact for now is amazing. I want something like this because there are too many stuff in ASP .Net and I am indeed overwhelmed. This is much better as I want to really start building it one page at a time.

 

I am super glad I read this thread. This is so amazing for me.

Great!  Have you checked out the book?  It'll walk you through all the basics (and keep it simple). 

W3bbo said:

HumanCompiler said:

*snip*

"Simpler" is subjective.

 

You'll see the ASP.NET advocates (who I find only really develop for internal web-applications) saying that data is simpler in ASP.NET because all you need is <asp:DataSource /> and <asp:DataGrid /> and then you'll have the pro-PHP lot with their simple C-style mysql_* functions.

 

So whilst it's true that ASP.NET is simpler in this regard, it isn't ideal because using that approach means sacrificing control over what you want to generate to the client. Your indie website developer is looking for something good-looking and unique, if he chose the "simple" ASP.NET solution he'd end up with something same-y and too rigid. He'd have to apply some major customizations to what ASP.NET gives you OOB to get something he wants, and the end result is something far more complicated than the PHP solution.

 

Case in point: to stop the brain-dead behaviour of a lot of the ASP.NET WebControls you need to redefine default.browser and put that into its own special directory, maybe throw in a web.config file. With PHP you can ship an entire application in a single *.php file (you can override php.ini settings and have full control over what's being generated), that's still something you can't do with ASP.NET.

 

I can draw analogies between your vision for ASP.NET as a "starter" solution as opposed to PHP and what WPF is to WinForms: yes, it's easier to make something simple, but in the vast majority of cases you end up with a software design and usability disaster (forgone conclusion about aesthetics too). We use MSPaint and not Photoshop for basic tasks for a reason, and this is the same thing.

Seriously, have you even looked at WebMatrix yet?  You're describing WebForms.  This is nothing like that.  ASP.NET Web Pages (the web framework part of WebMatrix) is a lot closer to PHP than WebForms or MVC.  A whole site in one PHP file?  Yah, you can do the same in a .cshtml file if you wanted to.  Really...check it out and don't come back 'til you do! 

W3bbo said:

HumanCompiler said:

*snip*

Ah yes, but to build a simple site ASP.NET is too much.

 

Microsoft needs to stop shoehorning ASP.NET into the "one-size fits all" it wants it to be, because it isn't. ASP.NET is not appropriate for small-scale websites, PHP won there, and Microsoft needs to leave it at that, anything else is just wasting their time.

 

I know Microsoft wants to attract the non-professionals and the hobbyists, but there are downsides to letting in the general riff-raff in. PHP has a bad reputation especially in security, whist PHP itself is secure as ever, it's the people who use it that largely got it there. I don't want to see the same thing happen to .NET.

Have you looked at it yet.    While you can use all of ASP.NET if you want, that's not what you start with.  In many cases it's SIMPLER than PHP.  If you find places where it's still harder than PHP, let me know.  Still room for improvement.

rhm said:

There's two issues aren't there?

 

1. Fashion and lack of awareness of .NET's benefits - php is more ubiquitous and probably always will be, ruby is more trendy. Don't underestimate the effect of programming fashion in startup culture. Some people would rather waste their time writing server-side code with immature tech like Node.JS than use something tried and tested like .NET or Java.

 

2. Fear of costs - People know they can always get Linux servers for next to nothing. I tend to think that if you're businesses sucess depends on eliminating the cost of a few Windows Server licences, then you've got a crappy business plan, but not everyone thinks like that.

I think a third point that goes beyond cost is simplicity.  Startups don't necessarily start with expert developers.  Lots are straight out of college.  I am biased though since I work on this WebMatrix stuff. 

CannotResolveSymbol said:

Looks pretty slick.

 

Although there's a lot of overlap here.  Why isn't this rolled into VS or VWD Express?  Why is this a distinct tool from the Web Platform Installer?

Because beginners don't need all that other stuff.  To build a simple site, VS is way too much.

ZippyV said:

Does it have Intellisense?

Not yet.  That's the first thing everyone asks and it's being worked on.

ScottWelker said:

vesuvius said:

*snip*

Yep Vesuvius, achieving and maintaining a consistent requirements understanding (internally and externally) is quite the high wire act

You MUST be flexible because the real world simply isn’t cast in concrete. However, as someone once quipped in a design meeting, “you can’t become so flexible that you can’t stand”

Yup.  Middle of the road is always best.

Dr Herbie said:

Ray7 said:

*snip*

I don't think C9 is a service -- I think it's an experiment.  When a new framework is created for web sites, C9 gets used as a testbed for the bits.

Betting 'next C9' is a test for the Orchard framework.

 

Herbie

 

Probably not, but I find it fun that you even thought that. 

"He says he's not dead"

"Yes he is"

"He is?"

"Well, he will be soon. He's very ill."

"I'm getting better"

ZippyV said:

Duncanma said:

*snip*

I think the biggest problem is going to be the bandwith. Lately, it's been impossible for me to watch a streaming video from C9 without the constant buffering screen.

Smooth streaming should help with that since it dynamically scales the resolution back if your bandwidth can't handle it.  That or just keep downloading the files.