Learn More
Resend Email
6
InEdited
7y

Why is there so much hate for ASP.NET?

undefined

discussion

c#

asp.net

discuss
Favorite
Ranter
Comments
  • 1
    7y
    define "hate"? :D
    Idk, I think it's oki, I just never use it since I find it's stuff unattractive to my eye. :D
  • 7
    7y
    Because it suuuuuuuuuucks

    Because you lose control of your UI, and are forced to make it with y2k technology.

    Because it's page-based.

    Because ASPX is old and must die.
  • 2
    7y
    I hated how convoluted the framework was. Not C#, but all the messy config files that went into an application and you have no idea what half of them are or they they make your project slow to build on good days and broken on bad days. It made me feel distanced from the code itself. Tying together all the stuff it did increased the chance that something would break, and you wouldn't know how to fix it because the code was auto-generated.
  • 0
    7y
    ...and what @AndSoWeCode said. 😂
  • 3
    7y
    Microsoft.
  • 3
    7y
    @dontbeevil In this case, it actually is a good reason.
    ASP.NET still has the same flaw that caused the whole Microsoft mess: The underlying base technology is non-free. A single corporate entity has full control over the whole technology stack.
    They could, in theory, from one minute to the next, decide that the fundamental technology your whole business is built upon is now legacy technology.

    With a free platform, that cannot and will not happen. If you take the Java platform as an example, you can see that there is a multitude of languages for the JVM. So if you are unsatisfied with Java, you can gradually switch to another language without having to re-implement massive amounts of code.
    This is only possible because the underlying platform is free, something that Microsoft, at the moment, is still not willing to do.
  • 2
    7y
    @3141 ummm, what?!

    No. Just no. .NET has a ton of languages that work with it. Same as JVM.

    Also, there is Mono, which developed in parallel, compatible in large part with .NET, and is now part of Microsoft, but the platform is still free.

    Then there is .NET Core, which is now v2. Completely open source.
  • 1
    7y
    @3141 and what about .net core?
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode no way. You lose control if you write crappy stuff. SoC is very well possible with asp.net and even webforms hated by many gives you almost full control of you are proficient in it. Anyway if you want full control use asp.net mvc.
  • 0
    7y
    Cuz it old
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode who dafuq would'be launching a serious project on Mono though
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode I agree that my language example was bad. But the availability of alternative languages for the .NET platform doesn't change the problem that the platform itself is still non-free. The fact that Mono now belongs to Microsoft, doesn't improve the situation, because Microsoft now has even more control over the platform.
    Even without ownership of Mono, Microsoft could still shutdown the project with the shit ton of patents concerning C# and .NET.
    As far as I know, .NET core is still a very limited subset, but I stand to be corrected on that topic.
  • 0
    7y
    @Obi-WanSpock Yea that's what I meant and I can see why now :D
  • 0
    7y
    @CodeMasterAlex ASP.NET just doesn't let you do important stuff like putting custom attributes on specific HTML tags (don't remember exactly which, but I think it's <body>), since it's processed internally and regurgitated. ASP.NET places its own HTML where it's not needed. Plus the routing is horrible. Sure you can make stuff with it, but it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
  • 0
    7y
    @isaacWeisberg that's not the point. People prefer Windows for any .NET implementation because of better support. But if anything would have happened to .NET, you could've as easily used Mono to host your legacy project, with only minor modifications.
  • 0
    7y
    @3141 MS can't shut down .NET and Mono. Mono is open source, like any other open source project. Anyone can fork it. You can do it right now:

    https://github.com/mono/mono

    Also .NET core now supports pretty much everything you need to build a state-of-the-art web app. .NET Core v1 was already a release, good for production use. .NET Core v2 is now in preview, but the zero-bug goal has been reached in May I think.
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode As far as I know it does let you do that. I have never ever encountered such issues, not in asp.net webforms nor asp.net mvc. I've been developing web apps on asp.net since the very beginning and still am today. Mvc really does give you full control and even with webforms you can do almost anything. So, now I'm wondering, what important stuff couldn't you get done?
  • 0
    7y
    @CodeMasterAlex I remembered. Try to set a "name" to the <form> element.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/...

    This is just ridiculous:
    > The HtmlForm control does not render a name attribute.
  • 1
    7y
    It's heavy, even if you're using mono -- using .NET on a non windows OS just feels weird. The architecture for basic applications is fucking prehistoric. And finally, there are numerous better platforms available.

    I don't see why in this day and age, any web developer (Frontend, backend, or full stack) wouldn't default to Node. One language, one dependency management system.. Everywhere vs architectural bullshit.
  • 0
    7y
    I too prefer Node honestly but I wanted to know what everybody thought
    And obviously it's mostly negative :D
    @neetjn
  • 1
    7y
    @InEdited hipsters. NPM and Yarn are both superior to compose, pip, and gems. The workflow with JS projects is so streamline.

    You can bootstrap an app in an hour if you know what you're doing. You also have so many super sets at your disposal like Coffeescript for Python and ruby devs, and TypeScript for C++/C# devs.
  • 3
    7y
    @neetjn 1 language? Dude, I'm just playing right now with Node. Trying out Hapi. Holy jesus the community is small, no help at all. You have to invent solutions to common problems, no structure at all.

    .NET heavy? .NET Core is among the fastest web platforms out there. And just because it feels weird to you for some inexplicable reason doesn't mean that it's a bad idea.

    What architecture is prehistoric? If you're using a newly cooked infrastructure, you can only learn from it how to make a clean application.

    Name one platform that's better than ASP.NET Core MVC. With reasons "why". Adoption rates don't count since Wordpress would be the best platform out there if you took that into account.

    People could learn a thing or two from ASP.NET Core MVC on how to make code readable and maintainable.
  • 0
    7y
    @neetjn as for bootstrapping an app on ASP.NET Core MVC - it's just 1 line in CLI:

    dotnet new mvc

    or

    dotnet new razor

    That's it. From then on you do whatever the f**k you want. Scripted pages? You can do that if you have a tiny site/app. API? Easy as pie. Views? Everything comes naturally with no fuss.
    The first time I ever touched ASP.NET Core MVC it just took me 2 hours to have a perfect setup. Next time it took me 15 minutes because I didn't have to read "Getting started" guides.

    NodeJS is great. It really is. But for f**ks sake don't tell me it's a streamlined process. It just shows that you have never even touched .NET in the last few years.
  • 0
    7y
    It's 2017, tons of court trials since SCO case and people still believe that what Microsoft names "open source" is far from being Open Source.

    I'd suggest to those of you, who have at least heard about SCO case, to check the license of dot net libs. Also to find out how many patents is protecting the dot net. Keep in mind that using a 'open software' doesn't mean you are protected from patent claims. If not Microsofts than 3rd party trolls. Like SCO.
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode asp.net core is freaking awesome.

    Im using it in production since 1.0 and never had any issues with it.

    Microsoft is going the OpenSource way believe it or not.

    Since ballmer and gates are gone, Microsoft has done great things.
    I make a living by using microsofts tools without the need to pay them.
  • 1
    7y
    @iNCEPTiON I don't think Gates was a bad CEO. At that time, what he did was mostly right. It gave Microsoft an edge that it still keeps today out of inertia. Ballmer however was a disaster. To him I say thanks for such great products like Microsoft Sharepoint Server and the "Let's invent our own ORM, with blackjack and hookers" approach to Entity Framework, when they could've gone with NHibernate.
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode For that I understand your opinion. But there are ways around it, even in older asp.net versions and it is so because in webforms the form runs server side. In asp.net mvc that really is not an issue at all.

    But your opinion on this is not really fair. It's like me saying php sucks bigtime. And it does. Or is it because many people write crappy, unmaintainable code with it? Or I couldn't achieve something which was really easy in a different technology?

    I get your point though but really, it is absolutely not that bad, especially when you have lots of experience with it and nowadays you can create almost anything with the MS stack.
  • 1
    7y
    @CodeMasterAlex the point is that I want to customize the output that I send to the client. I want to send any content, and I want to do it no matter what.

    It is completely unforgivable that I edit what is supposed to be a template, add some text that's not part of a logical construct in that template, and it doesn't get output. It is unforgivable that I waste hours first thinking that it's a weird bug with AngularJS (that validation doesn't work), then think it's a caching issue (that HTML is not as in the template), to then scour the forums to find absolutely nothing on this, and no guide.

    Which basically means that for a very stupid reason you can't plug in AngularJS validation to ASP.NET simply because AngularJS validation uses forms as central elements, and HTML forbids forms inside forms, and ASP.NET requires a central form on the page, which doesn't let you put the 'name' attribute.

    No matter what experience you have, you can't make it work. Because it sucks.
  • 0
    7y
    @AndSoWeCode Like I said you don't have that form issue with asp.net mvc, you can use as many forms as you like. And you can plug in angularjs validation, even wirh custom validation attributes defined in backend c# with some extra js to have them working on client side as well. I'm absolutely sure about this as currently I'm working at a bank building a new account opening process built completely on asp.net mvc with angularjs and web api. We use many custom made angular directives for advanced validations too. I don"t get why you can't send any custom output. If you would implement for example an IHttpHandler you can send anything you want. But in my experience you almost never need that.
  • 0
    7y
    @LicensedCrime I'm talking about classic ASP.NET. Not ASP.NET MVC with Razor view engine. That's different. ASP.NET refers to classic.

    I of course know about ASP.NET MVC and as I've stated in other comments, it's probably the best web framework for medium to large-size applications out there.
Related Rants
devRant © 2021 Hexical Labs LLC
Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service
Add Comment