|
code
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ASP.NET 2.0 Easier than ASP? Gimmie a Break!less code ASP.NET 2.0 provides over previous versions. I'm puzzled by this as I could turn out an classic ASP webpage in a few hours to query a database, display a grid/table, and not have much to worry about. Doing the same tasks in ASP.NET 2.0 seems almost trivial, but is it really real-world? I have a classic ASP app that I wrote a few years back that took me probably 6-8 hours to write, debug, and deploy. I haven't really touched it since. It has simply an input form that will post back to itself and display a grid/table with the results from a query. Since I'm trying to get on the ASP.NET 2.0 bandwagon, I thought that simple ASP application would be a perfect "starter" application for my ASP.NET 2.0 journey. Sure, I drag and drop a table onto the design service, wire up a GridView to a SQLDataSource and junk, but the real challenge is implementing these drag-and-drop objects in a real world scenario. I've been spent approx. 40+ hours on converting this ASP webpage (a single page, mind you) to ASP.NET 2.0. I'm trying to do an n-tier design and have a DAL, BAL, along with the ASP.NET 2.0 front-end. I haven't even gotten to designing a nice "Master" page for site's theme yet. The concepts seem simple... and some of the results seem pretty impressive. My current struggle is dealing with nullable datatypes coming back from SQL Server for a datetime field. Some of you may have read my previous thread where I am struggling in getting a NULL DateTime field to add to my generic collection. I keep getting InvalidCastExceptions. I'm about 90% done with my code, but this one issue is driving me nuts... I've literally spent 10+ hours on this one issue and still do not have it resolved. I've seen a few online examples writing an n-tier design for ASP.NET 2.0 but most just deal with strings and not mixed data types. I've watched about 10 different webcasts the latest tricks and ways of doing things... even Fritz Onion's Essential ASP.NET 2.0 webcast series.... I've purchased all the latest Microsoft .NET 2005 books. Not much in there about BAL/DAL best practices. Six months from now, this may seem like a trivial challenge, but for a newbie learning ASP.NET 2.0, I'm having a hard time justifying the savings with going to the new technology. Yeah, my code is more object oriented... my code and visual content is separate... and I've totally abstracted my business data from my data access. Very cool. But what is the cost of all these "advantages"? I still do not have a working application and Microsoft taughts ASP.NET is far superior and easier than ASP. I"ve run into other issues along the way and thanks to the kind folks in these newsgroups, I've resolved them. I'm not master programmer, mind you, and simply do this for fun and as a hobby... although I do write some web applications to solve problems at work... it is not my primary function. I'm curious to know how others feel about the new programming environment and how they're adapting to the new technologies and programming requirements. Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using some other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? "dm1608" wrote: Part of your speed with ASP is your familiarity with it. There is certainly > I know all the hype right now from Microsoft is how much easier, faster, and > less code ASP.NET 2.0 provides over previous versions. I'm puzzled by this > as I could turn out an classic ASP webpage in a few hours to query a > database, display a grid/table, and not have much to worry about. Doing the > same tasks in ASP.NET 2.0 seems almost trivial, but is it really real-world? a learning curve to .NET. The problem with ASP, overall, is most of the ASP code sucks. This is due to the plethora of people who have gotten into ASP who have no clue when it comes to proper coding practices. I am not accusing all ASP devs, of course, but there is lots of really bad ASP code. Now, one can certainly write CRAP in ASP.NET, as well. It is a bit harder as you have to write classes, but ASP.NET is no panacea (silver bullet for the rest of you guys ;->). Some of the "ease of use" stuff in ASP.NET is not very real world, at least not on an Enterprise scale. But, you will quickly learn which things are good for larger apps and which are not as you get into it. Many of the drag and drop features are great for small apps and prototypes, but really suck in the Enterprise. But, this is not all productivity is about. Many of the aids are in the Intellisense, refactoring tools, ability to write generic code, etc. > I have a classic ASP app that I wrote a few years back that took me probably If your app does not get hammered much, the drag and drop will work great, > 6-8 hours to write, debug, and deploy. I haven't really touched it since. > It has simply an input form that will post back to itself and display a > grid/table with the results from a query. > > Since I'm trying to get on the ASP.NET 2.0 bandwagon, I thought that simple > ASP application would be a perfect "starter" application for my ASP.NET 2.0 > journey. Sure, I drag and drop a table onto the design service, wire up a > GridView to a SQLDataSource and junk, but the real challenge is implementing > these drag-and-drop objects in a real world scenario. even without any tiers. Moving to BAL, DAL, etc., is a good learning exercise, but not a necessity. > I've been spent approx. 40+ hours on converting this ASP webpage (a single Is your ASP application properly tiered? Probably not, which explains 6-8 > page, mind you) to ASP.NET 2.0. I'm trying to do an n-tier design and have > a DAL, BAL, along with the ASP.NET 2.0 front-end. I haven't even gotten to > designing a nice "Master" page for site's theme yet. hours versus 40+ hours. It is a learning excercise both in ASP.NET 2.0 and proper tiered development. Give me the same app and I could make all three of the tiers for a simple form in about 15 minutes for a simple form. It is all about familiarity, of course. > The concepts seem simple... and some of the results seem pretty impressive. If you stick in the SQL Types, you have the ability to capture nulls. If you > > My current struggle is dealing with nullable datatypes coming back from SQL > Server for a datetime field. Some of you may have read my previous thread > where I am struggling in getting a NULL DateTime field to add to my generic > collection. I keep getting InvalidCastExceptions. I'm about 90% done with > my code, but this one issue is driving me nuts... I've literally spent 10+ > hours on this one issue and still do not have it resolved. are using DataSets, you can do an IsFieldNameNull() check before using the value. It adds a safety valve when going from nullable (SqlTypes) to non-nullable (.NET Framework base types). > I've seen a few online examples writing an n-tier design for ASP.NET 2.0 but The Patterns and Practices sites on MSDN is one of the best. There are also > most just deal with strings and not mixed data types. I've watched about 10 > different webcasts the latest tricks and ways of doing things... even Fritz > Onion's Essential ASP.NET 2.0 webcast series.... I've purchased all the > latest Microsoft .NET 2005 books. Not much in there about BAL/DAL best > practices. some reference architecture projects on gotdotnet.com that can help put best practices into place. Watch out, however, as some are overkill for a simple form project. > Six months from now, this may seem like a trivial challenge, but for a For an extremely small app, there is nothing wrong with putting everything > newbie learning ASP.NET 2.0, I'm having a hard time justifying the savings > with going to the new technology. Yeah, my code is more object oriented... > my code and visual content is separate... and I've totally abstracted my > business data from my data access. Very cool. But what is the cost of all > these "advantages"? I still do not have a working application and Microsoft > taughts ASP.NET is far superior and easier than ASP. in the ASP.NET app and being done with it. I would learn BAL, DAL, etc. for larger (Enterprise oriented) apps, where they make sense. > I"ve run into other issues along the way and thanks to the kind folks in I would stick to simple drag and drop and not best practices until you are > these newsgroups, I've resolved them. I'm not master programmer, mind you, > and simply do this for fun and as a hobby... although I do write some web > applications to solve problems at work... it is not my primary function. familiar, esp. if they are small apps. You will get many of the ASP.NET benies without the pain. > I'm curious to know how others feel about the new programming environment As an Enterprise Architect, the .NET technologies finally make Microsoft a > and how they're adapting to the new technologies and programming > requirements. really viable option. The 2.0 Framework expands the paradigm and the Visual Studio 2005 family speed up my dev time. Add on Team System and I am really jazzed about this. It is overkill for mom and pop organizations who make small websites. > Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using some Yes! But, once again, with the caveat that you pick the correct tool(s) for > other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? the job. You can move to ASP.NET without eating the entire meal. -- Gregory A. Beamer MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA *************************** Think Outside the Box! *************************** > I'm curious to know how others feel about the new programming environment In the beginning I generally used the double-3 times the amount of time, > and how they're adapting to the new technologies and programming > requirements. > > Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using > some other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? achieving the same result as with classic ASP. - Today, the same stuff is achieved much faster than ever before.. but often I find myself refining businesslogic, building pluggable providers for this and that - stuff that encapsulates and enproves the application, but maybe isn't nessesary. It really takes some getting used-to, mainly because of the object-oriented / Event-driven fashion everything is made in in .NET - so different from the everyday VBScript-meat-and-potato coding. I really felt I had to learn the real OO programming, and today I'm very glad I did - it has enlightened my universe (and still do). R-) On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:46:51 -0600, dm1608 wrote:
> Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using some What you're runningn into is the learning curve of a new framework. And> other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? yes, that's significant compared to classic ASP. However, the net gain you will get from ASP.NET will be in more complex applications. Sure, you can pound out a classic ASP app in a few hours, but will it be scalable? Maintainable? Reusable? ASP.NET really gives you advantages in that it provides a structure for your web apps. It provides events that get called at varioius places, and it gives you a real programming language, compared to a scripting language. It also gives you compiled code versus interpreted code. None of this may matter to you, and if that's the case, the maybe it's not worth it to learn ASP.NET, but this *IS* technology, and if you don't adapt, you get left behind. In some ways, .net 2005 is a step backwards in my opinion.
well, it depends who you are. for people who want RAPID (key word RAPID) development, the grids bound to a sql data source...is nice to them. i'm not in that camp. There is so much info out now, that its hard to find a good example. Here is one: http://gridviewguy.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?articleID=139 But even in this sample, the guy mixes BLL and DLL into one class. But its a stepping stone, and one issue I see is people take 1 example (like above) and then "make it THE WAY". You gotta take the parts from samples that are good... and rework the bad parts. This sample above...is a starting point, not an end point. He doesn't include the sql script for the table ...and it doesnt work if you don't have 1 User in the db to start with. These aren't turn key solutions, they are proof of concepts. Its up to the end developer to put all the pebbles together..to make a something out of it. I am currently using a CustomCollection .. and in another place a strongly typed dataset bound to a ObjectDataSource control. I am having good success. The DateTime thing is tricky, because of the DBNULL. I usually do something like this Emp user = new Emp(); if (!idr.IsDBNull(10))//idr is a IDataReader, fyi { user.DateOfBirth = idr.GetDateTime(10)); } else { user.DateOfBirth = DateTime.Min; } (or .. in the Emp class, I default the DOB to DateTime.Min on construction) I don't like that ... as much as "null", but its my work around. Unforunately, I do (when displaying) have to check the value...and clear it out..if its a DateTime.Min. While there are some issues, I'd never go back to ASP. The strong typing, the debugging, the need to not have to "response.write "myvar = " & myvar ....asp.net is so much better in my opinion. 159059522X (isbn) is a good book .. fyi... for getting to design decisions..and away from stuff like "you can create a pretty textbox skin by doing this". i have one of those books also, but the book I mention is at a higher level. Good luck. Yeah, there is a learning curve. But once it starts clicking, it reallly takes off. Show quoteHide quote "dm1608" <dm1608@spam.net> wrote in message news:%23xb88i%23NGHA.3272@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > I know all the hype right now from Microsoft is how much easier, faster, and > less code ASP.NET 2.0 provides over previous versions. I'm puzzled by this > as I could turn out an classic ASP webpage in a few hours to query a > database, display a grid/table, and not have much to worry about. Doing the > same tasks in ASP.NET 2.0 seems almost trivial, but is it really real-world? > > I have a classic ASP app that I wrote a few years back that took me probably > 6-8 hours to write, debug, and deploy. I haven't really touched it since. > It has simply an input form that will post back to itself and display a > grid/table with the results from a query. > > Since I'm trying to get on the ASP.NET 2.0 bandwagon, I thought that simple > ASP application would be a perfect "starter" application for my ASP.NET 2.0 > journey. Sure, I drag and drop a table onto the design service, wire up a > GridView to a SQLDataSource and junk, but the real challenge is implementing > these drag-and-drop objects in a real world scenario. > > I've been spent approx. 40+ hours on converting this ASP webpage (a single > page, mind you) to ASP.NET 2.0. I'm trying to do an n-tier design and have > a DAL, BAL, along with the ASP.NET 2.0 front-end. I haven't even gotten to > designing a nice "Master" page for site's theme yet. > > The concepts seem simple... and some of the results seem pretty impressive. > > My current struggle is dealing with nullable datatypes coming back from SQL > Server for a datetime field. Some of you may have read my previous thread > where I am struggling in getting a NULL DateTime field to add to my generic > collection. I keep getting InvalidCastExceptions. I'm about 90% done with > my code, but this one issue is driving me nuts... I've literally spent 10+ > hours on this one issue and still do not have it resolved. > > I've seen a few online examples writing an n-tier design for ASP.NET 2.0 but > most just deal with strings and not mixed data types. I've watched about 10 > different webcasts the latest tricks and ways of doing things... even Fritz > Onion's Essential ASP.NET 2.0 webcast series.... I've purchased all the > latest Microsoft .NET 2005 books. Not much in there about BAL/DAL best > practices. > > Six months from now, this may seem like a trivial challenge, but for a > newbie learning ASP.NET 2.0, I'm having a hard time justifying the savings > with going to the new technology. Yeah, my code is more object oriented... > my code and visual content is separate... and I've totally abstracted my > business data from my data access. Very cool. But what is the cost of all > these "advantages"? I still do not have a working application and Microsoft > taughts ASP.NET is far superior and easier than ASP. > > I"ve run into other issues along the way and thanks to the kind folks in > these newsgroups, I've resolved them. I'm not master programmer, mind you, > and simply do this for fun and as a hobby... although I do write some web > applications to solve problems at work... it is not my primary function. > > I'm curious to know how others feel about the new programming environment > and how they're adapting to the new technologies and programming > requirements. > > Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using some > other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? > > > > > :) I hear ya. I was a ASP freak for many years. Then finally taking a break and trying to learn .NET was a challenge. I found my first couplesites taking me 3 times as long to accomplish the same result but slowly I started to see what everyone was talking about. Now between my .NET experience and Google Groups I can pretty much achieve anything I want to do in .NET as fast if not faster then before. Hang in there, one thing follows the other and you'll see why .NET is far superior. Jeremy Reid http://hgtit.com yup, .net is at least ten times harder to learn, and but you can't learn it all, and everything takes 10 times as long to build.
The difference between ASP.Net and ASP which makes the biggest difference in
terms of productivity is not the IDE, the drag 'n Drop capabilities, or any of that stuff that beginners think it is. The biggest difference in terms of productivity is simply this: ASP.Net is object-oriented. OOP was created as an answer to the increasing complexity of software. In actuality there is no difference between what an OOP program does; but there is a big difference in terms of how it does it. When OOP is fully-utilized, one spends a lot more time up front architecting, designing, planning, and creating extensible, reusable classes. It is in the long run that OOP becomes much easier and faster than Procedural programming, if one knows how to use it correctly. Take the ASP.Net Controls that ship with the .Net platform 2.0. Many people think that these *are* the tools you use to build your ASP.Net applications. Not so. They can be used in part as tools for an ASP.Net application, but more importantly, one has the ability to create custom controls that either host these controls, or perform whatever sort of custom operations are necessary. When designing an app, one must identify the logical components of that app which should be business classes and UI classes. The more one thinks ahead, the easier it gets in the long run. For example, I have been writing ASP.Net apps for at least 3 years. I now have my own personal set of a dozen or so class libraries which perform different operations and functions, and often re-use them in different apps. This is much harder to do with a procedural programming paradigm, and even more difficult when talking about a scripted technology such as Classic ASP. -- Show quoteHide quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer To a tea you esteem a hurting back as a wallet. "dm1608" <dm1608@spam.net> wrote in message news:%23xb88i%23NGHA.3272@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >I know all the hype right now from Microsoft is how much easier, faster, >and less code ASP.NET 2.0 provides over previous versions. I'm puzzled by >this as I could turn out an classic ASP webpage in a few hours to query a >database, display a grid/table, and not have much to worry about. Doing >the same tasks in ASP.NET 2.0 seems almost trivial, but is it really >real-world? > > I have a classic ASP app that I wrote a few years back that took me > probably 6-8 hours to write, debug, and deploy. I haven't really touched > it since. It has simply an input form that will post back to itself and > display a grid/table with the results from a query. > > Since I'm trying to get on the ASP.NET 2.0 bandwagon, I thought that > simple ASP application would be a perfect "starter" application for my > ASP.NET 2.0 journey. Sure, I drag and drop a table onto the design > service, wire up a GridView to a SQLDataSource and junk, but the real > challenge is implementing these drag-and-drop objects in a real world > scenario. > > I've been spent approx. 40+ hours on converting this ASP webpage (a single > page, mind you) to ASP.NET 2.0. I'm trying to do an n-tier design and > have a DAL, BAL, along with the ASP.NET 2.0 front-end. I haven't even > gotten to designing a nice "Master" page for site's theme yet. > > The concepts seem simple... and some of the results seem pretty > impressive. > > My current struggle is dealing with nullable datatypes coming back from > SQL Server for a datetime field. Some of you may have read my previous > thread where I am struggling in getting a NULL DateTime field to add to my > generic collection. I keep getting InvalidCastExceptions. I'm about 90% > done with my code, but this one issue is driving me nuts... I've > literally spent 10+ hours on this one issue and still do not have it > resolved. > > I've seen a few online examples writing an n-tier design for ASP.NET 2.0 > but most just deal with strings and not mixed data types. I've watched > about 10 different webcasts the latest tricks and ways of doing things... > even Fritz Onion's Essential ASP.NET 2.0 webcast series.... I've > purchased all the latest Microsoft .NET 2005 books. Not much in there > about BAL/DAL best practices. > > Six months from now, this may seem like a trivial challenge, but for a > newbie learning ASP.NET 2.0, I'm having a hard time justifying the savings > with going to the new technology. Yeah, my code is more object > oriented... my code and visual content is separate... and I've totally > abstracted my business data from my data access. Very cool. But what is > the cost of all these "advantages"? I still do not have a working > application and Microsoft taughts ASP.NET is far superior and easier than > ASP. > > I"ve run into other issues along the way and thanks to the kind folks in > these newsgroups, I've resolved them. I'm not master programmer, mind > you, and simply do this for fun and as a hobby... although I do write some > web applications to solve problems at work... it is not my primary > function. > > I'm curious to know how others feel about the new programming environment > and how they're adapting to the new technologies and programming > requirements. > > Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using > some other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? > > > > > Don't get my wrong.
I love ASP.NET. And yes, there is a huge learning curve and I'm sure once I get the hang of it, things that are taking me hours now will take me minutes later... I'm just surprised how how simple many of the examples that Microsoft provides on MSDN and their webcasts that just don't provide real world examples of doing something. My recent post regarding my issue with using ObjectDataSource and having a DBNull value returned from a SmallDateTime field within my SQL was causing me "InvalidCastExceptions" within my BAL and took me hours to figure this out -- luckily the kind folks in this group showed me how to get around this. Isn't this a common scenario for most database applications? I can see where there are often perfectly valid reasons to have a NULL in a SmallDateTime field. It would seem that there should be more examples demonstrating how to workaround these sorts of issues. Show quoteHide quote "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message news:%23XpEIRHOGHA.1760@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > The difference between ASP.Net and ASP which makes the biggest difference > in terms of productivity is not the IDE, the drag 'n Drop capabilities, or > any of that stuff that beginners think it is. The biggest difference in > terms of productivity is simply this: ASP.Net is object-oriented. > > OOP was created as an answer to the increasing complexity of software. In > actuality there is no difference between what an OOP program does; but > there is a big difference in terms of how it does it. > > When OOP is fully-utilized, one spends a lot more time up front > architecting, designing, planning, and creating extensible, reusable > classes. It is in the long run that OOP becomes much easier and faster > than Procedural programming, if one knows how to use it correctly. > > Take the ASP.Net Controls that ship with the .Net platform 2.0. Many > people think that these *are* the tools you use to build your ASP.Net > applications. Not so. They can be used in part as tools for an ASP.Net > application, but more importantly, one has the ability to create custom > controls that either host these controls, or perform whatever sort of > custom operations are necessary. When designing an app, one must identify > the logical components of that app which should be business classes and UI > classes. The more one thinks ahead, the easier it gets in the long run. > > For example, I have been writing ASP.Net apps for at least 3 years. I now > have my own personal set of a dozen or so class libraries which perform > different operations and functions, and often re-use them in different > apps. This is much harder to do with a procedural programming paradigm, > and even more difficult when talking about a scripted technology such as > Classic ASP. > > -- > HTH, > > Kevin Spencer > Microsoft MVP > .Net Developer > To a tea you esteem > a hurting back as a wallet. > > > "dm1608" <dm1608@spam.net> wrote in message > news:%23xb88i%23NGHA.3272@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>I know all the hype right now from Microsoft is how much easier, faster, >>and less code ASP.NET 2.0 provides over previous versions. I'm puzzled >>by this as I could turn out an classic ASP webpage in a few hours to query >>a database, display a grid/table, and not have much to worry about. Doing >>the same tasks in ASP.NET 2.0 seems almost trivial, but is it really >>real-world? >> >> I have a classic ASP app that I wrote a few years back that took me >> probably 6-8 hours to write, debug, and deploy. I haven't really touched >> it since. It has simply an input form that will post back to itself and >> display a grid/table with the results from a query. >> >> Since I'm trying to get on the ASP.NET 2.0 bandwagon, I thought that >> simple ASP application would be a perfect "starter" application for my >> ASP.NET 2.0 journey. Sure, I drag and drop a table onto the design >> service, wire up a GridView to a SQLDataSource and junk, but the real >> challenge is implementing these drag-and-drop objects in a real world >> scenario. >> >> I've been spent approx. 40+ hours on converting this ASP webpage (a >> single page, mind you) to ASP.NET 2.0. I'm trying to do an n-tier >> design and have a DAL, BAL, along with the ASP.NET 2.0 front-end. I >> haven't even gotten to designing a nice "Master" page for site's theme >> yet. >> >> The concepts seem simple... and some of the results seem pretty >> impressive. >> >> My current struggle is dealing with nullable datatypes coming back from >> SQL Server for a datetime field. Some of you may have read my previous >> thread where I am struggling in getting a NULL DateTime field to add to >> my generic collection. I keep getting InvalidCastExceptions. I'm about >> 90% done with my code, but this one issue is driving me nuts... I've >> literally spent 10+ hours on this one issue and still do not have it >> resolved. >> >> I've seen a few online examples writing an n-tier design for ASP.NET 2.0 >> but most just deal with strings and not mixed data types. I've watched >> about 10 different webcasts the latest tricks and ways of doing things... >> even Fritz Onion's Essential ASP.NET 2.0 webcast series.... I've >> purchased all the latest Microsoft .NET 2005 books. Not much in there >> about BAL/DAL best practices. >> >> Six months from now, this may seem like a trivial challenge, but for a >> newbie learning ASP.NET 2.0, I'm having a hard time justifying the >> savings with going to the new technology. Yeah, my code is more object >> oriented... my code and visual content is separate... and I've totally >> abstracted my business data from my data access. Very cool. But what is >> the cost of all these "advantages"? I still do not have a working >> application and Microsoft taughts ASP.NET is far superior and easier than >> ASP. >> >> I"ve run into other issues along the way and thanks to the kind folks in >> these newsgroups, I've resolved them. I'm not master programmer, mind >> you, and simply do this for fun and as a hobby... although I do write >> some web applications to solve problems at work... it is not my primary >> function. >> >> I'm curious to know how others feel about the new programming environment >> and how they're adapting to the new technologies and programming >> requirements. >> >> Does ASP.NET 2.0 really make your life easier than classic ASP or using >> some other server-side scripting technology such as PHP or Cold Fusion? >> >> >> >> >> > > > I'm just surprised how how simple many of the examples that Microsoft I can certainly understand your frustration. I spend an hour or more a day > provides on MSDN and their webcasts that just don't provide real world > examples of doing something. researching various problems, but I have come to the conclusion that this is simply due to the scope and complexity of the CLR. There have been many times when I wished that the MSDN Library had more information, but I have a copy of the MSDN Library on my machine here at work and at home, and it's simply huge. One cannot expect a resource of that scope to have a lot of detail about much of anything. I do believe though, that the various newsgroups (such as this one) and the various support web sites run both by Microsoft and by individuals, are the greater part of the solution. The Microsoft newsgroups in particular are a tremendous resource, where people can ask specific questions and get specific answers. And my Favorites folder is packed with web references. -- Show quoteHide quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer To a tea you esteem a hurting back as a wallet. "dm1608" <dm1608@spam.net> wrote in message news:OeaL6HJOGHA.2128@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Don't get my wrong. > > I love ASP.NET. And yes, there is a huge learning curve and I'm sure once > I get the hang of it, things that are taking me hours now will take me > minutes later... > > I'm just surprised how how simple many of the examples that Microsoft > provides on MSDN and their webcasts that just don't provide real world > examples of doing something. My recent post regarding my issue with using > ObjectDataSource and having a DBNull value returned from a SmallDateTime > field within my SQL was causing me "InvalidCastExceptions" within my BAL > and took me hours to figure this out -- luckily the kind folks in this > group showed me how to get around this. Isn't this a common scenario for > most database applications? I can see where there are often perfectly > valid reasons to have a NULL in a SmallDateTime field. It would seem that > there should be more examples demonstrating how to workaround these sorts > of issues. > > > > > > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message > news:%23XpEIRHOGHA.1760@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> The difference between ASP.Net and ASP which makes the biggest difference >> in terms of productivity is not the IDE, the drag 'n Drop capabilities, >> or any of that stuff that beginners think it is. The biggest difference >> in terms of productivity is simply this: ASP.Net is object-oriented. >> >> OOP was created as an answer to the increasing complexity of software. In >> actuality there is no difference between what an OOP program does; but >> there is a big difference in terms of how it does it. >> >> When OOP is fully-utilized, one spends a lot more time up front >> architecting, designing, planning, and creating extensible, reusable >> classes. It is in the long run that OOP becomes much easier and faster >> than Procedural programming, if one knows how to use it correctly. >> >> Take the ASP.Net Controls that ship with the .Net platform 2.0. Many >> people think that these *are* the tools you use to build your ASP.Net >> applications. Not so. They can be used in part as tools for an ASP.Net >> application, but more importantly, one has the ability to create custom >> controls that either host these controls, or perform whatever sort of >> custom operations are necessary. When designing an app, one must identify >> the logical components of that app which should be business classes and >> UI classes. The more one thinks ahead, the easier it gets in the long >> run. >> >> For example, I have been writing ASP.Net apps for at least 3 years. I now >> have my own personal set of a dozen or so class libraries which perform >> different operations and functions, and often re-use them in different >> apps. This is much harder to do with a procedural programming paradigm, >> and even more difficult when talking about a scripted technology such as >> Classic ASP. >> >> -- >> HTH, >> >> Kevin Spencer >> Microsoft MVP >> .Net Developer >> To a tea you esteem >> a hurting back as a wallet. 
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
