Last post Nov 23, 2008 09:44 PM by TATWORTH
Nov 17, 2008 04:03 AM|chessaccess001|LINK
What's is going on with this MVC crazinness. I'm sorry but I had to vent. This has to stop. MVC was good for desktop applications, but for the web? I saw the video that claims they will do a task-list in 20 minutes; I laughed. First, the person was
rushing through the IDE as only a seasoned expert can. Second, he mixed a lot of foreach tags with the html. Third, I built the same application with webforms in 5 minutes (no kidding); just dragged a data list, dragged a data_source, even opened a linq
to sql and bound the linq to the data list. Formatted the datalist to be understrike after selected. Oh, put some css as well to make it nice (that actually took me 2 of the 5 minutes). ASP.NET Developers Listen - we love webforms. There is no need to
change what's good. That was the only reason why I'm paying a more expensive hosting that supports ASP.NET. I'm telling you, if you go MVC - I'll go PRADO and host my site in a free Apache server. Nough said. Thank you.
Nov 17, 2008 08:50 AM|XIII|LINK
please take a look at this article:
The Future of WebForms And ASP.NET MVC. At our project we also still use webforms but if there would come server controls like a listview, ..., in it we might take a dive into it. Personally I like that the ASP.NET team added several new possible ways of
developing your stuf (Webforms, MVC, dynamic data, ...) and that you have the choice. If you want to stick with webforms that's just ok.
Nov 17, 2008 09:11 AM|Sgro|LINK
That post is fun. If you like webforms, stick with it. But don't come around telling people to stop develop mvc, please no. I'm so happy to have got rid of webforms, should MVC be dropped, I'll leave microsoft technologies to switch to ruby on rails.
Nov 17, 2008 11:26 AM|mvcian|LINK
You are true lover of Web Form. I appreciate it. But each development (Web Form or MVC) has it's own advantage(s) and disadvantage(s).
Let's leave it to the developer or Architect to decide which one they want.
Nov 17, 2008 05:44 PM|chessaccess001|LINK
I appreciate that my opinion is being heard. I have to admit that maybe I judged to quickly. I played around with MVC and identified some potential development benefits. I still think it is a retro-move to something that was engineered in the 70's (late
70's but still 70's) and for totally different purposes than the web. Also, although the first MVC architecture proposed the separation of those elements, that doesnt mean that you actually have to have the architecture with that specific framework. Let
me explain; the first proposal was to create layers between the data logic (then named models), the business logic (then named controller) and the ui logic (then named views); but that does not mean that your architecture has to have those specific frames.
The code-behind model was developed by Microsoft in the 90's (1995 was the first proposal with XSP(?) but the final framework didnot become official until late 90's). The code-behind model was good for the web because it separated all the layers mentioned
above, but did not create abstractions out of the actual pages. See, MVC is proposed for big enterprises, but those are the actual ones that will notice the effect in performance when the MVC engine has to create an abstraction from the actual code and then
translate it (dispatch it, render it; choose RoR, Zend or any other) to another language. There has to be an actual cost in performance. Whay not go straight to the source? HTML is not that bad; and with code behind the HTML can contain code without mixing
it with it.
Developers like MVC because they dont have to repeat as much code and we are lazy by nature (personnaly that's why I'm interested in developing and want leave my legal career behind once and for all [but this is not about me]). My humble suggestion to ASP.NET
team is: keep supporting WebForms, a lot of people come into the developing field because they find WebForms user friendly. If you want to offer the MVC alternative, that's ok; I guess you have to make a business decision and bring the RoRs and CakePHP and
Zend and Symphony and Django geeks back to the ASP.NET world. For those hard-core RoR type developers MVC in ASP.NET is a bliss; they dont have to work with command line and the Visual Studio line offers a lot of out-of-the-box solutions that speeds development.
But then again, why would they choose ASP.NET over RoR or Cake if they can host their applications cheaper with those other frameworks? And that is why you cannot stop supporting WebForms and have to put even more tutorials (updated ones please) for WebForms.
Does this make sense? Hey, I'm just a n00b; so I dont really know a lot. Bu what better way to learn than to criticize and get criticized? Maybe I should stick to law (no, wait, I dont like lawyers.)
Nov 23, 2008 09:44 PM|TATWORTH|LINK
I too am very cautious about MVC and its purported benefit. I am glad that there is someone else sounding a note of caution about MVC.