Just curious why this day in age anyone would choose to start a new project in old-school ASP 3.0? I'm sure there must be good reasons, but I can't imagine what they could be.

1) I cut my eyeteeth on ASP way back in the day (2000).

2) Over the course of the past 7 years, I've written subs and functions that work ten times more efficiently than anything I've seen from the .NET camp.

3) ASP.NET, from my dabblings with it a few years back, produced a boatload of crappy HTML code.

4) I never could wrap my head around how to declare a variable in one include file and use it in others, whereas with classic ASP a variable declared in one include file can easily be used in another, assuming both include files are called.

Other than that...no reason.

Well, the first three come down to personal preference, but the way you'd take care of the last one is to create a class that inherits from System.Web.UI.Page with your variables and methods, then make all of your web app pages inherit from this new base class.

Same reasons as Adam for 1,2 & 3. (although a year or so earlier for 1)

I already code ASP using classes for inheritance and shared functionality, so in my few forays in the .net world I haven't found anything that would actually benefit me greatly.

Even the much vaunted "Master Pages" are of no use, as I can just as easily set a class up for my page templates that I can instantiate and set the properties for as & when needed.

A year or so earlier? No wonder your teeth keep ending up biting me when they fall out of your mouth, Grandpa.

Aha!

So that's where I left them


They do say the erm ... erm something? is first to go.

Originally Posted by chrishirst

I already code ASP using classes for inheritance and shared functionality, so in my few forays in the .net world I haven't found anything that would actually benefit me greatly.

Even the much vaunted "Master Pages" are of no use, as I can just as easily set a class up for my page templates that I can instantiate and set the properties for as & when needed.

I don't think that much of master pages, or use them very often. But there are so many other great reasons to go the way of ASP.NET - am I the only one who's ever had to devote a thread to something in particular? Or share code between win & web apps?

My love for ASP.NET comes from the standpoint that I'm writing computer software, not scripts. If I need to do something, and the PC is capable of it, like say write to the event log, pester active directory, or whatever else, I can do it in a logical, easily laid out way, with no late binding.

Do people really not mind Server.CreatObject("Something.Complex.Here"), and then referring to invisible methods of your variable?

Doesn't bother me. I just use CreateObject instead (Server. isn't necessary).

That, and I put most of my object creation/destruction code in the include files so I very rarely have to look at it. I have procedures called ArrayRetriever, FieldRetriever, and QueryExec (among others) that do my thinking for me! Oh, sweet laziness and sloth, how do I adoreth thee?

Wow. I'm amazed. Guess it's more up to personal preference than anything else.

Has anyone tried using the built-in VB to .NET tools on their code library? You wouldn't get the full benefits of the framework, but I'm hearing that people have a decade of experience coded in cement, a tremendous asset.

I use them both. When I have a choice I prefer aspx, but I don't have anything major against the old method. Both of them can accomplish an awful lot, and I think it really comes down more to the abilities of the programmer than the language they choose. Even if that's heresy.

Microsoft made a lot of noise about the new system is 300 % faster than conventional asp ... but notice there are still parts of their sites running asp classic. Remember it's all managed code; when you access a slot in an array, the CLR checks the bounds and types first before even considering your code. That's great for preventing buffer overruns, but it costs CPU cycles. If you're using the .NET 1.x collection objects ( ArrayList, HashTable, etc ) you aren't taking full advantage of the potential speed increases, either. Those collections store everything as a System.Object, which means boxing and unboxing primitives ( ints, floats, ... ) and even when you deal with value types, there's still a penalty whenever you downcast from System.Object to any descendant, because, again, the CLR does all of its type checking to make sure that's legal, and throw an exception if it's not.

I personally like the .NET environment a lot, and there are some very compelling reasons to use it ... but how many people need any of them? You mentioned spawning a thread in a web application; I've actually done this to implement fire-and-forget logging and speed up page generation, but since every request automatically gets its own thread, how many people really ever have to or even want to worry about the underlying mechanics of how their code is executed?

So if we're having a vote, cast mine for .NET, but I'm really not at all surprised that pre-.NET code has so much lasting power.

I will admit that I have using ASP.NET for over 6 months now, but if I had a choice, I would still use classic ASP. However, I am sticking with .NET because it is just the thing. Classic ASP is simply no longer supported. So, I think eventually, we will ALL be programming in .NET whether we like it or not.

I hated learning ASP.NET 1.0 and 1.1 and agree with some of the people above that it IS crap, but I happen to really like ASP.NET 2.0.

Some people said above, that you could care less about master pages, but since I learned .NET 2.0, I have become addicted to Master Pages. Call me a MP junkie.

What I REALLY like about 2.0 is the skinning and theming as well as web parts.

i prefer asp.net for larger projects

frenz, its very nice to work with asp.net . i am using both language asp or asp.net...
see this site this site done in both language....



< added link drops removed >

I think there are two big reasons (other than the numerous already mentioned) for using classic ASP rather than ASP.NET:

• Extending / integrating with existing ASP apps is bound to be somewhat easier
• Target ("developer") audience may not have any experience with ASP.NET and therefore if you write in ASP.NET they get confused... if you write in ASP they can dabble; this is perhaps slightly limited scope, but I refer specifically to a project I was involved in where we developed an app. to be shipped around the world to many semi-technical people (e.g. you had an IT manager who kinda played with ASP once a few years ago) who may want to customise the app a little.

Broadly speaking, I haven't really got a clue when it comes to ASP.NET - although I've dabbled with c# a little in desktop land. Interesting reading this thread though

Well dear, as you know about asp and asp.net.... these two languages supports only windows OS and asp.net is the advance version of ASP...it helps us to make the development more easy n time saving....

so dont worry, have it any one, I prefer for asp.net....!!!


regards,
Mowglitech.com

Why is it so many people simply have to demonstrate their lack of knowledge?

these two languages supports only windows OS and asp.net is the advance version of ASP...it helps us to make the development more easy n time saving....

Wrong, wrong & wrong.

one;
ASP and ASP.NET are NOT languages.

two;
Neither of them support an OS rather only a Windows OS will fully support either.

three;
ASP.NET is not an "advanced" version of ASP. it is a whole new framework for constructing application, and the .net framework, unlike ASP can be used for both for web applications and desktop applications.

Originally Posted by arnold

i prefer asp.net for larger projects

I agree in lager project is asp.net unbeatable