Future of classic ASP

[MikeR]

What do y'all see for the future of ASP in light of MS decision to replace
FrontPage with a new series of development tools? All of them mention ASP.NET,
but no mention of the ASP I love.
Mike

 

[Evertjan.]

MikeR wrote on 06 apr 2006 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

What do y'all see for the future of ASP in light of MS decision to
replace FrontPage with a new series of development tools? All of them
mention ASP.NET, but no mention of the ASP I love.

As I dare to suggest that most ASP programmers hate Frontpage,
and so the love/hate relationship will continue in years to come,
at least as long as some large companies use classic ASP.

 

[Mike Brind]

What do y'all see for the future of ASP in light of MS decision to replace
FrontPage with a new series of development tools? All of them mention ASP.NET,
but no mention of the ASP I love.
Mike

Sorry - I fail to see what FrontPage has to do with ASP.

 

[Patrice]

It will be just left unchanged with no new products.

Not sure but IMO you should be able to use those new products at some level
(their HTML markup design capabilities) but you'll be unable to use the more
advanced feature (such as server controls). I would grasp a demo once (or
if) available.

Also at some point I would consider upgrading to ASP.NET.

 

[MikeR]

MikeR wrote on 06 apr 2006 in microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:


As I dare to suggest that most ASP programmers hate Frontpage,
and so the love/hate relationship will continue in years to come,
at least as long as some large companies use classic ASP.

Thanks, I sure hope so.

 

[MikeR]

Sorry - I fail to see what FrontPage has to do with ASP.

Good question, Mike -
Nothing directly, but since I don't know the relatiionship (at the server level)
between classic and .net, I was concerned that MS may drop classic, and force
every one to "convert". Probably showing my ignorance.

 

[MikeR]

It will be just left unchanged with no new products.

Not sure but IMO you should be able to use those new products at some level
(their HTML markup design capabilities) but you'll be unable to use the more
advanced feature (such as server controls). I would grasp a demo once (or
if) available.

Also at some point I would consider upgrading to ASP.NET.

I'm looking at Visual Web Developer Express. So far, so good.

 

[Stefan Berglund]

Good question, Mike -
Nothing directly, but since I don't know the relatiionship (at the server level)
between classic and .net, I was concerned that MS may drop classic, and force
every one to "convert". Probably showing my ignorance.

If microsoft wants to force that issue, they will very quickly learn how
simple it is to refactor an ASP/SQL Server/IIS site to
PHP/PostgreSQL/Apache and wind up with comparable or better performance
on lesser quality hardware.

 

[Marc P.]

My response is what should that some point be? I'm still struggling with
being accustomed to coding in classic asp and now having to rethink all my
approaches. not using include files, importing name spaces like java,
binding to datagrids and all. it's really taxing considering the fact that i
became pretty proficient in classic.

 

[Mike Brind]

Here's the result of a bit of googling I did:

1,080,000,000 for allinurl: "asp"
1,120,000,000 for allinurl: "php"
588,000,000 for allinurl: "cfm"
528,000,000 for allinurl: "aspx"
419,000,000 for allinurl: "jsp"

It's not the most scientific of studies, I know, but the sheer volume
of existing classic ASP pages suggests it will be around for some time
yet. My experience suggests that the vast majority of these sites are
B2B sites, and it makes absolutely no sense to port these over to
dotnet just because dotnet is available. So they will stay classic asp
probably at least until they need to be completely re-written for
stategic or marketing reasons, and will need classic ASP developers'
skills to maintain and develop additional functionality. Having said
that, there is no reason why the additional functionality can't be done
in dotnet, if it's a modular piece of work. I am seeing increasing
amounts of classic ASP and dotnet being used in the same application.

In addition, the vast majority of small to medium businesses don't
actually care what technology is used to create their dynamic site - so
long as the functionality they want is there. So that leaves it open
to the development company to choose the technology. I read somewhere
that MS will still incorporate the classic ASP engine in at least the
next generation of servers, so that suggest no plans to "force" anyone
across to dotnet.

I had a go at dotnet with the first releases, and gave up with it to an
extent. The whole process of connecting to a database, generating a
recordset and binding it to something required considerably more code
than in classic ASP, so I couldn't see the point of moving across at
that time - certainly not from a productivity point of view. v2.0 is
completely different - especially with the freely available Visual Web
Developer Express.

Now it is something I am learning properly, although I'll stick with
Visual Basic.

 

[Slim]

I plan to start playing with asp.net, but I will still do my serious work in
asp as long as I can

I think asp is more hands on and gives you more freedom

Here's the result of a bit of googling I did:

1,080,000,000 for allinurl: "asp"
1,120,000,000 for allinurl: "php"
588,000,000 for allinurl: "cfm"
528,000,000 for allinurl: "aspx"
419,000,000 for allinurl: "jsp"

It's not the most scientific of studies, I know, but the sheer volume
of existing classic ASP pages suggests it will be around for some time
yet. My experience suggests that the vast majority of these sites are
B2B sites, and it makes absolutely no sense to port these over to
dotnet just because dotnet is available. So they will stay classic asp
probably at least until they need to be completely re-written for
stategic or marketing reasons, and will need classic ASP developers'
skills to maintain and develop additional functionality. Having said
that, there is no reason why the additional functionality can't be done
in dotnet, if it's a modular piece of work. I am seeing increasing
amounts of classic ASP and dotnet being used in the same application.

In addition, the vast majority of small to medium businesses don't
actually care what technology is used to create their dynamic site - so
long as the functionality they want is there. So that leaves it open
to the development company to choose the technology. I read somewhere
that MS will still incorporate the classic ASP engine in at least the
next generation of servers, so that suggest no plans to "force" anyone
across to dotnet.

I had a go at dotnet with the first releases, and gave up with it to an
extent. The whole process of connecting to a database, generating a
recordset and binding it to something required considerably more code
than in classic ASP, so I couldn't see the point of moving across at
that time - certainly not from a productivity point of view. v2.0 is
completely different - especially with the freely available Visual Web
Developer Express.

Now it is something I am learning properly, although I'll stick with
Visual Basic.

 

[Anthony Jones]

I plan to start playing with asp.net, but I will still do my serious work in
asp as long as I can

I think asp is more hands on and gives you more freedom

More freedom?? You're kidding right?

Script language vs full on C# or VB.NET + .NET Framework. Which one gives
the most flexibility?

The problem with freedom is that it's harder to manage and easier to make
poor choices.

What I like about ASP is that a minimum skill set can get a lot done.

Compare Hello World in Charles Petzolds (showing my age now) Windows
Programming with doing the same in VB.

ASP.NET is a bit like that, to get the same stuff done takes a more
disciplined approach than you'll see in a large proportion of ASP
development today. However once learned and we discard the MS
'helpfullnesses' with our own approaches (e.g., More Javascript clientside
stuff rather than the incessent round-tripping some ASP.NET demands) then
we'll start to see .NET solutions start to come in to there own.

That said I've often challanged .NET proponents with:-

What does .NET really give me that I don't have with
Javscript+ASP+VBScript+VB6 that I'm already using?

There are a some reasonable answers I'm sure but I've not heard a killer
commercial one.

As Mike Brind has touched on I think it will be market forces that will
bring about the change. The people holding the purse strings don't really
care what technology is used to deliver their apps but the internal IT
people do and the purse holders listen to them.

Anthony.

 

[Marc P.]

I appreciate the feedback given by the various posters. A speculative
question, does anyone think that IIS at some point in the next 10 years will
absolutely not support classic .asp at all. The dilemma i have is that i'm
planning to build a web app and sell it to my customers, but i'm only
comfortable enough to stand behind the code if it's VB/.ASP. What i don't
want to have happen is that web hosting companies in their typical
upgrades/updates, move to a newer version if IIS and then i'm stuck with
websites/code that doesn't work or i have to solicit resources to convert my
"old" code . . . I emailed the company that i primarily use for web hosting
services and posed this same question to them and here's what they said:

**********
While we don't have a definitive timeline, we generally stop supporting
things when MicroSoft stops supporting them (the products end of life). This
rule is not definitive but is generally the guideline we use when determining
support for any product line.
**********

 

[Slim]

More freedom?? You're kidding right?

Script language vs full on C# or VB.NET + .NET Framework. Which one gives
the most flexibility?

you can use COM+ with ASP for anything that cant be done in script. ASP
should only be the front end anyhow, the main logic should be in your
middleware.

As for freedom, asp does not try to do it for you with controls and the
like.

 

[Mike Brind]

This should help answer your questions and concerns:

http://rtfm.atrax.co.uk/infinitemonkeys/articles/asp/905.asp

If there are still millions of classic ASP websites around in 10 years,
then there will be hosting companies crawling all over the owners to
get the business. You know you've picked the wrong hosting company
when they become the ones dictating what technology you can develop in.

 

[Anthony Jones]

you can use COM+ with ASP for anything that cant be done in script. ASP
should only be the front end anyhow, the main logic should be in your
middleware.

Agreed although a separate COM+ is sometimes an overkill (after all an ASP
app is a COM+ app).

As for freedom, asp does not try to do it for you with controls and the
like.

There's nothing in .NET forcing you to use the builtin controls. You can
use .NET to generate whatever output HTML you prefer in a very similar way
to ASP you can even do it in-line if you're a die hard ASPer.

Personally I don't think much of the builtin controls in .NET but what is
exciting is the prospect of taking them (or perhaps a base class below them)
and building your own.

 

[Slim]

Agreed although a separate COM+ is sometimes an overkill (after all an ASP
app is a COM+ app).


There's nothing in .NET forcing you to use the builtin controls. You can
use .NET to generate whatever output HTML you prefer in a very similar way
to ASP you can even do it in-line if you're a die hard ASPer.

Personally I don't think much of the builtin controls in .NET but what is
exciting is the prospect of taking them (or perhaps a base class below
them)
and building your own.

I plan to give .net another go, i used it a bit when it was new, but have
become so comfortable with ASP and VS6 , i grew up with them you might say

but then, I still like B\W movies, I still listen to Hank Williams and Slim
Whitman, I don't have a mobile phone or a DVD player

In a way I wish the world would stay still

 

[Dave Anderson]

but then, I still like B\W movies, I still listen to Hank
Williams and Slim Whitman, I don't have a mobile phone or
a DVD player

There's a new version (3.0) of Hank Williams available. Hank III sounds a
lot like Wayne Hancock, who sound more like Hank Sr. than anybody.

 

[Mike Brind]

There's a new version (3.0) of Hank Williams available.

Won't be long before we get Hank.Net, then.

 

[Slim]

There's a new version (3.0) of Hank Williams available. Hank III sounds a
lot like Wayne Hancock, who sound more like Hank Sr. than anybody.

yes i had a lisen
some of his stuff is much like his grandfather, some of it is more lie the
cramps