Disadvantages in Visual Studio 2005 (Web sites)

[Peter Franks]

Thanks fou your opinions.

When I develop a product, and I release a new version of it, my customers
aren't so open. But since now, I won't care of their opinion.

In my opinion, it is Microsoft's sole purpose to release a product, then
define that as the industry standard and expect everyone to follow it,
then release the next version of the product, standards be damned, and
then expect everyone to change to their new model that is never
backwards compatible.

 

[Peter Franks]

My point is that you disagree with this point of view. However, just
because you disagree with the approach doesn't mean Microsoft did something
wrong. It just means that you're not willing to accept their change in
approach. Nothing more, nothing less.

Their CONSTANT changing of approaches. MS completely alienates their
existing base of users with each release; always concerned about
attracting new users with 'new and better ways'.

 

[Peter Franks]

You are not forced to anything. In all of this, you have a choice.

No you don't, you lost the option to choose when MS decided to tie the
development environment to the framework.

Bad for choice, great for MS.

 

[abunet]

Peter, you're the first person that have understood the meaning of this
thread. It make me less afraid to be the only one that belives in
compatibility.

Peter Franks ha scritto:

 

[Guest]

Christopher,
Thanks for the post, but I can't understand your answer.

The point that I'm trying to make is that you are looking at the
"disadvantages" of VS 2005 when none of these changes should make any
difference at all to you

False. You're forgetting the time spent to find a solution for the
disadvantage, or the time spent to understand the changes. And time is cost.

If you cannot create a website using a text
editor and the .NET Framework (any version), then you need to step back
first and reevaluate your programming skills.

I've never said that I can't.

Additionally, these "disadvantages" should be mere
inconveniences, not show-stoppers in your development progress.

I've never said I've stopped something. When I started posting my question,
I'd already had found a workaround.

In the last post, I only wanted to specify that there are other products
(like VFP) that in several years didn't confuse their customers at every
upgrade of version.
So it demonstrates that is possible. Not more, not Less.

 

[Scott Allen]

This is what I was wondering; is it correct to say that "namespaces" in
general are working in VS2005, but there's a problem with DataSets that
use xsd?

Yes, I'd say that is correct.

 

[Scott Allen]

Thanks Scott.

You've found one.
And what about the code behind generated for WebForms in subfolders? There
Namespaces are not added to.

Sorry about that - dropped out of civilization for a bit.

I don't think putting WebForm classes into namespaces is entirely
useful. In fact, I've only seen trouble result when coupling too
closely to the code-behind class for a web form. It's best if they are
out on there own and remain anonymous.

Nevertheless, if you want to use the same model as 2003 in 2005, then
you'll want to use Web Application Projects [1]. Although it is
missing some features currently, it will be a full blown supported
package by MS.

[1] http://webproject.scottgu.com/

 

[Scott Allen]

Their CONSTANT changing of approaches. MS completely alienates their
existing base of users with each release; always concerned about
attracting new users with 'new and better ways'.

MS has essentially admitted to a mistake [1]. Although many people
like the new model, migration has proved difficult. Thus, "Web
Application Projects" [2] were born.

[1] http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/12/16/433374.aspx

[2] http://webproject.scottgu.com/

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Their CONSTANT changing of approaches. MS completely alienates their
existing base of users with each release; always concerned about
attracting new users with 'new and better ways'.

Personally I agree with this, although it's important to separate
deliberate "forced change for political reasons" and genuine
technological advantage where you have to move from an earlier model.

I think we've seen far too much hype and politics recently and very
little technical innovation. Vista is a case in point.

 

[Gerry Hickman]

Peter, you're the first person that have understood the meaning of this
thread. It make me less afraid to be the only one that belives in
compatibility.

Thing is; their model is great for home user types who dabble, but it's
a headache for people who have to do real work. Complex systems and web
applications have run on UNIX/LINUX for years with hardly a reboot in
sight and are easy to migrate to new servers, but Microsoft's software
needs constant attention and patching. It's great if you're a lone user
with Admin rights and do everything in the GUI, but not so good when you
want to maintain it on hundreds of machines at a remote location.

 

[Robin]

Peter, you're the first person that have understood the meaning of this
thread. It make me less afraid to be the only one that belives in
compatibility.

Peter Franks ha scritto:

Couldn't agree more. One reason I love my Delphi

<gd&r>

 

[Gabriel Magaña]

difference at all to you. If you cannot create a website using a text

editor and the .NET Framework (any version), then you need to step back
first and reevaluate your programming skills.

Nobody said this... Just because, for example, you can create master pages
within master pages in code does not mean people will really start to use it
until VS2005 fully supports such a feature (currently, it does not). The
IDE is of great importance.

I could, if pressured enough, program a web site in assembler under DOS,
which was my first programming language. That does not mean that I will or
that I should, nor does that fact imply I am a better or worse programmer.
The whole purpose of the IDE is to make our programming jobs easier.

not a programmer at all. Additionally, these "disadvantages" should be
mere inconveniences, not show-stoppers in your development progress.

I'd rather stop the show than use little-known tricks that, while they work
and make me feel smart, are veryt hard to understand to a fellow competent
programmer. My customers expect more of me than that, and I really don't
like to rely on that kind of thing for job security.

 

[Christopher Reed]

I'd say that Microsoft is making more of an acknowledgement that some people
had created some fairly complex web applications that did fit the new model
than it was admitting a mistake. If it was a mistake, then the web project
model would be made available for all versions of VS 2005 (won't be
available for the Express product). Frankly, as I've stated before, I think
this new model is one of the best ideas that Microsoft has done in years.
I, for one, will continue to use the website model.
--
Christopher A. Reed
"The oxen are slow, but the earth is patient."

Their CONSTANT changing of approaches. MS completely alienates their
existing base of users with each release; always concerned about
attracting new users with 'new and better ways'.

MS has essentially admitted to a mistake [1]. Although many people
like the new model, migration has proved difficult. Thus, "Web
Application Projects" [2] were born.

[1] http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/12/16/433374.aspx

[2] http://webproject.scottgu.com/

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the news Scott.
This demonstrates that conflict of opinions in a "fair play" way of
communication are always usefull.

Their CONSTANT changing of approaches. MS completely alienates their
existing base of users with each release; always concerned about
attracting new users with 'new and better ways'.

MS has essentially admitted to a mistake [1]. Although many people
like the new model, migration has proved difficult. Thus, "Web
Application Projects" [2] were born.

[1] http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2005/12/16/433374.aspx

[2] http://webproject.scottgu.com/