Who is using ASP.NET? | The Coffeehouse

UlsterFry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_fry

Does anyone else think it's a bad idea to put 'MySpace' on the http://www.asp.net/getstarted/ page?

I mean, I've a mySpace account, and I think it's one of the worst sites in terms of UI design.

It may be powering it, but shouldn't they be showcasing good examples of ASP.Net?

Edit: Or did they just put it up there cause 'MySpace' has some degree of street cred?

Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.

Perhaps to prove how scalable ASP is?

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

Or just a matter of name-tossing, like "Hey, ya'll know the big huge very popular website MySpace.com, right? Yeah, well, they rely on our technology to be as cool as they are!"

lukes

I think myspace is one of the must unstable websites I use. At least 3 or 4 times a day when I use it (my friends use it so I have to) I get an error message while doing something. Tom (who I actually don't have on my friends list) really needs to sort it out.

kettch

It can't be entirely ASP.NET, most of the links include *.cfm which is ColdFusion *shudder*.

warren
atom heart mother

Myspace is more a testament to SQL 2005 than it is to ASP.NET. They use Coldfusion for the cornerstone stuff.

wkempf

UlsterFry wrote:
Does anyone else think it's a bad idea to put 'MySpace' on the http://www.asp.net/getstarted/ page?

I mean, I've a mySpace account, and I think it's one of the worst sites in terms of UI design.

It may be powering it, but shouldn't they be showcasing good examples of ASP.Net?

Edit: Or did they just put it up there cause 'MySpace' has some degree of street cred?

ASP.Net is going to do nothing for a site's design. It's backend technology, not a design tool. Looked at in that light (the proper light), MySpaces is a very good example.

yman

warren wrote:

They use Coldfusion for the cornerstone stuff.

I heard that they are using some type of cfm - > .NET compiler, similar to Phalanger for Php.

HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code

yman wrote:

warren wrote:
They use Coldfusion for the cornerstone stuff.

I heard that they are using some type of cfm - > .NET compiler, similar to Phalanger for Php.

They're actually just in a transitional period right now. They're in the process of switching completely to ASP.NET. Their SQL Server migration is done though I believe. The ASP.NET migration is taking a while it seems. So parts are still Cold Fusion and some is ASP.NET. I'm sure having a strange mix could affect stability. Wink

Sampy
This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it and we have become exceedingly efficient at it

ASP.NET is awesome. One of my favorite features that it enables is something we use in the EvNet codebase: custom URL parsing. That lets us get the nice clean hackable URLs you see on 10.

Secret 9 update feature leak:

The wiki will use nice clean URLS like this:
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/HomePage

With support for namespaces:
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/WPF/FAQ
*and*
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/WCF/FAQ

Now on to the cool stuff. You can append a version number to see a certain version of the page:
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/HomePage/10

If you append a Year/Month and optionally a /Day it will show you how the page looked on that day:
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/HomePage/2006/10/04

And finally, append a negative number to walk back in the version history (what did it look like *before* someone changed it to goat.se?):
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/HomePage/-1

I'm working on the formatting engine now (I call it the Wiki Compiler Smiley

). If you have any other cool ideas for URL formats, let me know!

HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code

We should do that for comments in threads too so if something seems fishy, you can just click a "show me what the parent post of this comment looked like when it was posted" (ok, shorter) so if they edit a parent post to mean something completely different, they can easily see that.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

HumanCompiler wrote:
We should do that for comments in threads too so if something seems fishy, you can just click a "show me what the parent post of this comment looked like when it was posted" (ok, shorter) so if they edit a parent post to mean something completely different, they can easily see that.

Yes, edit history for forum posts would be a very welcome feature for me. Although it does mean people will be able to see all the grammar and spelling mistakes I make. Tongue Out

HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code

Sven Groot wrote:

HumanCompiler wrote: We should do that for comments in threads too so if something seems fishy, you can just click a "show me what the parent post of this comment looked like when it was posted" (ok, shorter) so if they edit a parent post to mean something completely different, they can easily see that.

Yes, edit history for forum posts would be a very welcome feature for me. Although it does mean people will be able to see all the grammar and spelling mistakes I make.

Yup...that's what 90% of the feature will be used for. Wink

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

kettch wrote:
It can't be entirely ASP.NET, most of the links include *.cfm which is ColdFusion *shudder*.

As the others said, they're in a transitional period. Plus they've probably mapped the *.cfm extension to the ASP.NET ISAPI.

I am interested in the heavy ASP.NET integration with IIS. Why does ASP.NET get all the love in the metabase and Administration consoles (especially in IIS7) whilst other technologies are being ignored (like SSI, ASP3, ISAPI, and others)

kettch

W3bbo wrote:

kettch wrote: It can't be entirely ASP.NET, most of the links include *.cfm which is ColdFusion *shudder*.

As the others said, they're in a transitional period. Plus they've probably mapped the *.cfm extension to the ASP.NET ISAPI.

I am interested in the heavy ASP.NET integration with IIS. Why does ASP.NET get all the love in the metabase and Administration consoles (especially in IIS7) whilst other technologies are being ignored (like SSI, ASP3, ISAPI, and others)

Yeah, I figured something like that. ColdFusion still gives me the creeping willies though. I still have nightmares once in a while.

JChung2006

I am intrigued by Microsoft's recent initiative to partner with Zend and implement PHP on IIS 7. I wonder how far they will go with that. Imagine a Microsoft/Zend-supported PHP runtime with access to the .NET framework. Something like that could very well put ASP.NET to pasture if done right.

warren
atom heart mother

There's already a PHP compiler which can bring PHP code into the .NET framework, and make .NET stuff available to PHP.

http://www.php-compiler.net/

JChung2006

warren wrote:

There's already a PHP compiler which can bring PHP code into the .NET framework, and make .NET stuff available to PHP.

http://www.php-compiler.net/

Imagine a Microsoft/Zend-supported PHP runtime with access to the .NET framework.

UlsterFry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_fry

wkempf wrote:

UlsterFry wrote:Does anyone else think it's a bad idea to put 'MySpace' on the http://www.asp.net/getstarted/ page?

I mean, I've a mySpace account, and I think it's one of the worst sites in terms of UI design.

It may be powering it, but shouldn't they be showcasing good examples of ASP.Net?

Edit: Or did they just put it up there cause 'MySpace' has some degree of street cred?

ASP.Net is going to do nothing for a site's design. It's backend technology, not a design tool. Looked at in that light (the proper light), MySpaces is a very good example.

Put this way:
Myspace is difficult to use, throws errors like they're going outta fashion, the navigation is terrible. Now, if I was a non-ms developer and shown that site as a good example of ASP.Net I'd laugh and think it was a crap technology.

My point is, sure ASP.Net may be doing wonderful things for MySpace on the backend but we're not told about it, where are the case studies, whitepapers etc?

WBurggraaf

ASP.NET controles mostley arent that good. What I'm doing allot is first creating controles with a stringbuilder, design them by time and if they are good create a user/custom control with the stringbuilderpart in the render with some property code. ASP.NET works fantastic, you only need to have allot of experience in xhtml/dom and oo. If you don;t, don;t botter to use it as a super tool Wink

.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

WBurggraaf wrote:
ASP.NET controles mostley arent that good. What I'm doing allot is first creating controles with a stringbuilder, design them by time and if they are good create a user/custom control with the stringbuilderpart in the render with some property code. ASP.NET works fantastic, you only need to have allot of experience in xhtml/dom and oo. If you don;t, don;t botter to use it as a super tool .

Good lord, why do it with a string builder when you have that lovely writer which even supports an enum that has all the valid HTML elements and will close everything in HTML or XHTML form depending on your config.

WBurggraaf

blowdart wrote:
WBurggraaf wrote: ASP.NET controles mostley arent that good. What I'm doing allot is first creating controles with a stringbuilder, design them by time and if they are good create a user/custom control with the stringbuilderpart in the render with some property code. ASP.NET works fantastic, you only need to have allot of experience in xhtml/dom and oo. If you don;t, don;t botter to use it as a super tool .Good lord, why do it with a string builder when you have that lovely writer which even supports an enum that has all the valid HTML elements and will close everything in HTML or XHTML form depending on your config.

Because it's faster to throw it all in the designer and to see what I'm doing. Code in that and then past it into the code put some code (I need to watch my language) around it and it works then write the code bt for bit. Hate that writer. But If I have a job were they give me time for it, hey I'm thel ast one not to use it. Because the format you get with the writer is nice thats true. But it doens;t saves me time. And my boss doesn;t care about nice code but only how many things I can do in the fastest time.

The conclusion is, your right, but I don;t have the time to do it. Or are you the last person on earth designing in notepad?

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

WBurggraaf wrote:
Because it's faster to throw it all in the designer and to see what I'm doing. Code in that and then past it into the code put some code (I need to watch my language) around it and it works then write the code bt for bit. Hate that writer. But If I have a job were they give me time for it, hey I'm thel ast one not to use it. Because the format you get with the writer is nice thats true. But it doens;t saves me time.

I'd argue it's the same amount of time, but then I'm used to it.

Stringbuilder html = new Stringbuilder();
html.Append("<b>");
html.Append("hello");
html.Append("</b>");
writer.Write(html.ToString());

versus

writer.BeginTag(HtmlTextWriterTag.B);
writer.Write("hello");
writer.EndTag();

With intellisense I can't see much difference at all; plus with the niceness of not having to think about XHTML I much prefer the writer methods. It even has maintainability bonus points Big Smile

In reply to {0}

Download:[Pending]

In reply to {0}

Download:[Pending]