Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 18.104.22.168
Forum Moderators: ocean10000
Just want to throw a question out there. Did Microsoft ever announce how long it is going to support ASP? Or will it quietly go away in 2-3 years, and we'll have to rebuild sites in .NET?
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)
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.
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.
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!
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.