Mike Brind said:
Forget it. You cannot use VWD for classic ASP debugging because it does
not
support attaching to process. It's not an upgrade on Visual Interdev
anymore than VB.NET is an upgrade of VB6 or ASP.NET is an upgrade of
Classic
ASP. They are entirely different technologies. They are replacements
for
older technologies that Microsoft have decided not to provide any
backwards
compatibility for.
You can, however, invest in the full version of Visual Studio 2005 and
use
that to debug classic ASP, and read about why they have cut classic ASP
support from this product:
http://blogs.msdn.com/greggm/archive/2006/03/15/552108.aspx. Oh, and VWD
is
the cut-down version of VS2005 - not an upgrade on anything at all.
I guess the difficulty that MS have is that they introduced the .NET
framework 6-7 years ago. VS2005 is the third version of the .NET IDE and
they have the fourth - VS2008 - in Beta2. The framework itself is now on
version 3.5. Classic ASP only ever made version 3.0, and that was
launched
in Feb 2000. Most serious developers have moved onto the .NET framework
now
and have the paid-for IDE. Hardly anyone new is learning classic ASP,
and
the number of nature of posts in this group bears that out. They've more
than halved over the last year or so, and most concern legacy apps. On
the
other hand, the multitude of newsgroups and forums available for ASP.NET
are
literally struggling under the strain of increasing activity. If you
were
running the business, you would probably make the same decisions MS have.
I
know I would.
I think it's called "progress".
Mike,
Thank you for your reply.
I have an early (the first) version of Visual Studio .NET in an MSDN
Universal Pack (forgot the exact year). Would I be pissed at myself if I
invested in installing that one? And would the VS6 InterDev be better
that
the VS.NET (in that MSDN Pack) for my work with ASP Classic/VBScript?
BTW, my remaining ASP Classic projects are essentially ports from VB6.
These particular clients have too many problems with fat clients as time
goes
on. Also, users there are more saavy now, and they insist on using their
own
e-mail clients and other personal apps that sometimes create issues with
the
fat client configurations.
I choose to port these apps rather than re-write them in VB.NET for
various
reasons, but high on the list is my extensive use of Variants in the
interface to a key OCX I wrote that manages data and the GUI for that
product
platform. Such extensive use of Variants precludes a simple re-write to
.NET.
Cheers,
Jim Rodgers
==========================
A Rant, An Aside, A Point of View:
I started using ASP back in 1996 when IIS was a product MS bought from
Vermeer. I guess ASP got cleaned-up and packaged as such in 1997. At the
same time MS was wrestling with the VB3-VB4 upgrade (that, too, really was
a
replacement rather than an upgrade). Surely it was at least by then MS
started the trajectory for the VB5/6 to VB.NET strategy. Still, even back
then I was suspicious of the use of a scripting tool for ASP. I've always
been amazed that it worked so well.
I agree that .NET is vastly superior to its predecessor technologies. I
once evangelized the superiority of VB over PowerWhateverItWas and Delphi
and
even C++ ...for most In-House tasks like IT and Engineering applications.
However, despite the superiority of the replacement technologies, I am an
evangelist NO MORE.
Especially as my responsibilities now are more related to business
management and strategy, I am beginning to see software development in a
new
way. When MS decides to dump support -REALLY- for ASP Classic by not
allowing it to run on new server platforms, then we will see how smart
they
are.
There is a Perfect Storm brewing out there, and it is not the making of
some
anti-Microsoft or anti-Bill Gates conspiracy. Rather, it is the result of
SUCCESSFUL Microsoft strategies (more exactly, Philosophies) that they
could
not keep selling INTERNALLY as staff turns over. Let me ramble on.
Some great strategies are not well-supported by Market Science - just as
some poor ones (e.g., out-sourcing) seem at first to be well-supported by
Business Science. Sometimes it takes talented LEADERSHIP with that deeper
understanding and vision to to push some strategies to fruition -
sometimes
over the dead bodies, as it were, of generally well-informed advisors. I
have "recommended or approved" (as they say) many millions of dollars
worth
of Microsoft products. I did it because it made sense to me. When my
detractors wanted to out-source the manufacturing plant to China, I and my
associates showed the owners how they could do even better keeping it in
Atlanta. Microsoft, Visual Basic, Access, Excel, and SQL Server were key
elements in that plan. So was leveraging the under-utilized skills and
intelligence of the hourly workers. This was the missing link most
American
corporations never find - indeed, they never even look for it.
Now, Microsoft also is not looking for this critical layer in the
"time-space continuum" of the Life Cycle of their customers. All those MS
sales I am responsible for really had their roots in my work with
"Microsoft
Basic," a 4k ROM-based interpreter on my Kim-1 home computer. "Everyone"
thought that was just a hobby or a toy, but I did post graduate studies
using
that thing! Later, "they" also said the same sorts of comments about
Visual
Basic.
While all the C++ programmers were having meetings about meetings, and
listening to guest speakers, and their managers were writing poison
e-mails
(on the VAX!) about my groups amatuer techniques, we were eating their
lunch.
While all the Quality Engineers were setting up mandatory training
sessions
for everyone on God-knows-what-this-time, my team was writing a
distributed
real-time data collection and process control system (Manufacturing
Execution
System) in VB3 and Access 95. Yield went from 70% to 99.9%, and we
emerged
from bankruptcy. While the IT Dept was conducting data model reviews for
variables naming and orthogonalization - and forcing all development on
Oracle and Solaris - millions were lost in inappropriate capital
expenditures, failed IT projects, failed Quality initiatives, and
"reusable"
C++ softwares that other C++ programmers refused to work on unless they
could
do a complete re-write or got a big raise.
The point is this: SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE IS OFTEN MORE IMPORTANT than
being some kind of big deal smarty-pants know-it-all expert on programming
science. If you completely detach subject matter experts (test
engineering,
manufacturing engineering, physical simulation, statistical analysis,
financial analysis, quality engineering, ...even SQL development)... if
you
detach experts from any access to software development tools, there will
be a
price to pay. This price is higher for US and Europe than it will be for
China and India, but still it is a significant expense. In fact, it is
STRATEGICALLY IMPORTANT to address this aspect of the fabric of a
medium-to-large company.
I fear VB.NET and C# and whatever are 29% too much trouble for the real
producers of the company to leverage. In my experience, most pure
"programmers" have no other bottom-line skills or knowledge besides their
one
or two programming languages and maybe a superficial awareness of systems
architecture. Engineers, scientists, and mathematicians got a wonderful
gift
when VB3 came around. Suddenly, they could write code for THEIR needs
without jumping through all kinds of corporate hoops to get at programming
resources. Moreover, VB ran on THEIR computer, not the corporate mini or
mainframe. This is an exact parallel to how, perhaps five years earlier,
professionals found they could write their own documents without
submitting a
requisition to the Word Processing Department. Productivity went through
the
roof - and in more than some small part, it was due to the leadership and
vision of Bill Gates.
Consequently, the late 1980's and especially the 1990's became a period of
fantastically-improved results (especially productivity) in global
corporations. The stock market went berserk. And in the late 1990's, the
Internet multiplied this effect - until that bubble burst.
My concern for programmers today is that many of them will not add value.
Just as the Word Processing clerk had to go back to being an admin
assistant.
And if you are good enough to be regarded as a professional programmer,
then
you better live in India. Watch what happens. And watch how moves [like
making VB completely different] break the siphon - they create a rift in
the
time-space continuum of corporate business culture. Ladies and gentlemen,
we
are only now at this point. I'm still seeing A WHOLE LOT of "asp"s on
website links today - they are not all "aspx" just yet. And where did
some
of the previous software development managers go? They were promoted so
they
could crush VB and perhaps even Microsoft (yes, I took my meds!) - because
"understanding what is the best language" is the only core skill they
have.
This results in a strategic misalignment which will maintain the current
"resource leak" we know of as out-sourcing.
In the future, after all this shakes out, I believe we will see very
carefully made distinctions between computer technologies developed
in-house
for situationally-unique uses (in hundreds of ways) and those purchased
(many
as software services) for complex but well-understood common problems like
ERP and personal productivity. Isn't this obvious already? But we also
will
see (as we do not now see) ways to address the CONTINUITY and
interoperability of these two realms.
In this perspective, classic VB plays its role in-house. So what happens
to
the knowledge workers who have heretofore kicked-butt because they knew
Excel, Access, VB, VBA, and/or VBScript? They are abandoned by Microsoft
since Bill Gates left. I do not yet know who is their new benefactor. I
feel lost in the woods without a compass. Is Delphi still viable? Did
Delphi ever get support on UNIX? Didn't Borland change their name to
Delphi?
How is that going?
And what is the role of VB.NET? It can only be in the big software
realm -
shrink-wrapped and Software-As-A-Service products. But can it really
compete
here up against Enterprise Java Beans and C++? I don't really know that
either, but I am not putting ANY money on .NET. Finally, if these
products
are "what you buy" and not what you make (unless you are a big software
"manufacturer"), then who will be hiring most .NET programmers? I don't
think Microsoft cares WHO buys their stuff; but, then, that's the whole
problem.
Ah, yes, I feel better now.