Regular HTML vs ASP.Net controls

[Ryan]

Regular HTML vs ASP.Net controls

Anyone use regular html instead of asp controls? why?
For one, if you have some code needed on 10 pages, building the piece
of code in a method makes the most sense.

is it good to mix?

does anyone find it better to use html over asp.net controls...
vice-versa?

(I have been working with asp.net for almost 5 years... )

 

[Ryan]

obviously i realize that the end result of the asp.net controls is
html...

are they really that important to use though?

 

[Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]]

HTML controls are smaller, quicker, and have less features.
It's mostly a matter of preference.

Here are more details:
http://SteveOrr.net/faq/3in1.aspx#HTMLvsWeb

 

[Mike Lowery]

I've mixed them at times. Sometimes it's easier to deal with predictable HTML
code instead of an ASP control. Using ASP controls also puts more of a burden
on your web server since there's pre-processing involved. HTML is just sent
as-is.

I'd like to hear other thoughts on this.

 

[Ryan]

In regards to Steve C. Orr's post... I was not asking about HTML
controls vs ASP controls.
I was asking about using Regular html over using Controls (html or asp)

----------------------------------------------

for example...I often stick to building html in a method rather than
using a repeater...
(a) the code may need to be shared between pages
(b) if there is a lot going on in what I am displaying, building in a
method seems to work better (less complex)

 

[Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]]

So you're talking about manually concatenating HTML strings together? Sound
innefecient and error prone to me. Even if you're generating the correct
HTML now, will it still be correct when XHTML is the norm? What about the
standard after that?
If you let ASP.NET do its job and generate the HTML for you then you don't
have to worry about all that.

 

[Ryan]

It occurs

(a) when there is more programming than html
(i) it is in no way error prone... never had a problem... I
use stringbuilders to build the html and the function is limited ...
its not like all the html is build in the back end...
(ii) xhtml? simply update the method...
(c) when a certian group of code needs to be shared to many pages a
method works the best for me
(i) I have found user controls to be a mess to work with..

 

[Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]]

Well I believe you that it works, but it sounds like it would be a rather
high maintenance approach, especially if any other developer had to fill in
for you because it's definitely a nonstandard way of doing things in
ASP.NET. I'm not necessarily saying that your approach is wrong, but it
sure doesn't sound like you're taking advantage of ASP.NET's strengths. It
sounds more like you've written your own version of ASP.NET.

 

[Ryan]

Well this wasn't my approach... this was a group approach... we started
out using user controls and moved away...

user controls add way too much complexity...
methods are simple and easily shared...

I think the way we have it works really well.