 MortiOli wrote:
Apologies if this sounds like an obvious question, and being off topic...
What advantages would people get from an ASP.NET version, to the existing standard ASP version? |
Well, one benefit of using ASP and PHP over ASP.NET is that it is NOT compiled. I'm not sure if its a requirement, but some web apps that were designed for me in ASP.NET were compiled, which means that I cannot edit it and make changes myself since I don't have an ASP.NET Editor and Compiler. And worse, the web designer didn't give me the original code, which meant I could't change it and recompile it myself even if I wanted to. With ASP and PHP, I can whip out a text editor if I want and make changes to the code. Because of that I have had to rewrite all the ASP.NET code they wrote for me into either ASP or PHP, which is something I can modify myself without an ASP.NET compiler.
I am very glad WWF is not written in ASP.NET. With it being in ASP, I can customize it and integrate it into my website because the source code is included. And WWF is documented very well, I might add, which made it easy for an ASP newbie like I was to do what I needed to do to get things working the way I wanted.
ASP.NET is good for professional web developers who want to prevent you from changing the code, in order to force you to pay them for changes. Or forcing you to accept whatever they offer (i.e. you can't ask Microsoft to change Microsoft Word just for you no matter how much you pay them).
ASP is good for webmasters who want to modify the original code of the script they purchased or who want to build upon a good script to create something unique, and not have to pay a developer to do simple changes they can do themselves for free.
ASP.NET basically tries to turn what used to be uncomplied script-based web pages that could easily be changed by the webmaster into compiled software that the webmaster cannot modify.
Topic Options
Post Options
Thanks(0)
