1 |
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> The output of ASP.Net is trash. Most notably it doesn't gracefully degrade |
4 |
> as the browser loses features, and generates unnecessary round-trips to |
5 |
> the server. |
6 |
|
7 |
That was true for *Microsoft's* ASP.Net 1.1. The output HTML for the MS |
8 |
supplied controls was pretty ugly and non-standard. ASP.Net 2.0 is much |
9 |
improved. I also use Mono. Mono's .Net 1.1 has better output than MS's |
10 |
.Net 1.1. |
11 |
|
12 |
> I agree that event-driven programming generally a better fit for GUIs, |
13 |
> however it's not really a good fit for HTTP. I prefer a middle ground |
14 |
> that removes the spew of markup (which is bad) but doesn't work against |
15 |
> HTTP/HTML. In general, the goal is for php/java/vb/c#/<your language |
16 |
> here> to not generate much markup, but to generate the content inside the |
17 |
> markup. |
18 |
|
19 |
Middle ground is very good. I do like event driven programming and |
20 |
doing web apps with it seems natural to me. However, there are some |
21 |
things that do seem clunky and not to fit well with event oriented web apps. |
22 |
|
23 |
> Code separation is easily done without writing event-driven code. You can |
24 |
> define procedure libraries and/or Class (and object) hierarchies that |
25 |
> don't deal with markup but use their results in the markup. |
26 |
|
27 |
True. However some models lend better to more separation. There is no |
28 |
one *true* method for every purpose. I have done the markup-with-code |
29 |
crap; The extremely complex abstractions Java crap for a simple web app; |
30 |
the make everything like a VB form MS C# web app crap; etc, etc. They |
31 |
all have had pros and cons. |
32 |
|
33 |
> Writing an event-driven dynamic webpage is a little questionable to begin |
34 |
> with since the underlying protocol is request-driven. If your |
35 |
> applications are request driven, you'll find they are much easier to |
36 |
> debug. Work *with* the tools you are given, not against them. On top of |
37 |
> that, you have very little control over the other side of the protocol, |
38 |
> most of the time. This is basically a requirement for layer another |
39 |
> framework on a protocol and changing how it works. E.g. TCP |
40 |
> [stream-oriented with delivery guarantees] over IP [packet-oriented with |
41 |
> no delivery guarantees] has fairly specific behavior for both sides of the |
42 |
> TCP connection. |
43 |
|
44 |
The protocol is not important and that is why it is OK to abstract it |
45 |
away. Event oriented web apps are not the answer for everything. They |
46 |
have pros and cons. |
47 |
|
48 |
All I know is I don't want to ever have to do stuff like this again: |
49 |
|
50 |
echo "<table><tr><td>".$foo."</td></tr></table>\n"; |
51 |
Response.write "<table><tr><td>" & foo & "</td></tr></table>" & vbCrLf |
52 |
|
53 |
: ) |
54 |
|
55 |
> The SquirrelMail source code is trash. |
56 |
|
57 |
I haven't gone through all of it, or even much of it to really know. |
58 |
Though the compose.php page was a real mess. All I wanted to do was |
59 |
line the form buttons up nicely : ) |
60 |
|
61 |
Jim |
62 |
-- |
63 |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
64 |
There's no place like 127.0.0.1 |
65 |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
66 |
JimD |
67 |
Central FL, USA, Earth, Sol |
68 |
-- |
69 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |