| 12:56 pm on Oct 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I had heard that classic ASP will be around for a good 9 - 10 years, although not fully supported in development any longer.
As long as IIS contains the proper dll for it, it will work forever.
My theory is that if one day MS dumps ASP, someone will come along with a third party way to run classic ASP. (Sun already has the SunONE version which used to be chilisoft)
| 6:27 pm on Oct 6, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Same issue for VB6. Extended support is set to expire 3/2008. Of course the programs will continue to run after 2008, but for those with low risk tolerance this should cosidered.
| 5:30 am on Oct 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I personally don't think .net is quite ready for prime time yet. There are certain issues with accessibility and validation that are keeping me in ASP land for the time being. IN the meantime, ASP serves its purpose admirably.
| 10:10 am on Oct 8, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are currently about 3 million asp.net web sites [news.netcraft.com], and the adoption curve is a straight line, and is double the number of sites from the start of the year.
| 8:52 pm on Oct 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
You know, 3 million web sites using .NET and I have only seen a handful of them. Why is that? (My job requires me to surf the web all day, every day.)
I was just talking with some other developer friends and we all agreed that none of us have seen any .NET Windows apps yet. Where are they being used in the general population? I sure haven't seen them. I'm sure they are out there, but I would have to agree that .NET hasn't made it to prime time.
| 10:54 pm on Oct 9, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|I have only seen a handful of them |
With billions of web pages out there the odds are that you're not going to run across one randomly.
If you want to go looking for aspx pages, you can choose from the 33,000,000 hits found by google:
| 7:22 pm on Oct 10, 2004 (gmt 0)|
There are a couple of things that you have to realize:
1) A site doesn't have to be all ASP.NET. I am rolling some new pages into my sites as ASP.NET pages, but the old pages are still ASP. There are several reasons for this. I developed some very sophisticated sitemap and page template technology in ASP that is used on virtually every page on the site. Similar technology will be in the box in the next version of ASP.NET, but I've had it working for years.
I can't abandon this technology without redoing the entire site, which means a lot of work, plus it changes the URLs of all the pages. All of the pages have been indexed in Google and many are linked from elsewhere. So I have reason to leave existing pages alone, but develop new stuff in ASP.NET.
If you look at the Microsoft web site, it is developed with a variety of technologies, increasingly ASP.NET, but not exclusively.
2) URLs that use the default page, e.g. [example.com...] don't show the file extension. So the page could be .aspx and you can't see it.
3) The vast majority of ASP.NET web sites are not public (and thus don't even count toward the 3 million that were indexed). If I had to guess, I'd say 9 out of 10 ASP.NET pages are not accessible from an anonymous Internet browser.
ASP.NET gets the most leverage when used for sophisticated intranet sites, and B2B (business to business) pages. B2C (business to customer) pages are frequently one-way interaction; B -> C. This isn't where you get the most leverage out of ASP.NET. If you are just posting an article on a web site, there isn't a strong reason to make it an .aspx page.
The B2C pages that do use ASP.NET are frequently pages that are database or XML driven. These pages are usually not the home page, so if that is what you are looking at, you will miss that the important part of the site is ASP.NET.
| 3:46 pm on Oct 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Xoc, all good points, but there has got to be a reason that 90% of ASP.NET sites aren't public web sites. Certainly a web site would have to be public to be considered a part of "prime time".
I'm certainly not knocking Microsoft. I make my living from the fact that MS has done so much to enable the little guy with a good idea to turn it into an enterprise. I'm just tired of hearing all the hype when I'm not seeing real-world examples nor practical solutions to the problems that I need solved.
Thanks for your input!
| 5:31 pm on Oct 11, 2004 (gmt 0)|
-->Or will it quietly go away in 2-3 years
Well I'm a staunch ms user and .net already has that amount of time under it's belt and it seems to be getting stronger by the week but there ARE some merits to some of the comments in this thread (where are the .net apps).
Although releasing .net objects, applications & upgrades for .net apps seems to be much easier it's the exact opposite when upgrading large or complex legacy apps to .net. I'd love to flip a switch and have everything migrated but the reality for me has been if I want it migrated then I have to re-write it. I would imagine that many organizations such as mine are weighing the benefits vs. cost in making that upgrade.
In some cases it's just not worth the time for my organization to write the upgrades especially because we'd be forced to write *a-ton* of com interop code. We're taking a position that if we can't come over cleanly (NO COM INTEROP) code then we're staying put until we can.
| 10:51 am on Oct 19, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Once you .Net you never go back ;-)