ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
haacked.com
ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#2Amazing how timing changes the amount of points given to the exact same story :D
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#3Amazing how timing changes the amount of points given to the exact same story :D http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=523053
Timing is king. For MS it means that they have to adapt to new trends faster if they don't want their products abandoned.
MVC is a really big step forward, something that most people didn't expect from MS (meaning the inclusion of third party stuff).
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#4Amazing how timing changes the amount of points given to the exact same story :D http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=523053
Timing is king. For MS it means that they have to adapt to new trends faster if they don't want their products abandoned. MVC is a really big step forward, something that most people didn't expect from MS (meaning the inclusion of third party stuff).
Also the fact that the ASP.NET MVC framework is itself open sourced (the code is available on Codeplex).
I've been using this framework for a recent project at my day job and it's definitely a step in the right direction (i.e. toward design patterns common in other popular web development frameworks such as MVC, pluggable ORM system, use of third-party libraries such as jQuery, clear separation of concerns, and a strong focus on test driven devlopment).
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#5This a great framework, i've been using it for over a year now. It's been iteratively released (to public) 10 times, which is a new way for MS to develop, and they have really listened to the feedback from its users.
Visual Studio + asp.net mvc is a highly efficient dev. enviroment.
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Timing is king. For MS it means that they have to adapt to new trends faster if they don't want their products abandoned. MVC is a really big step forward, something that most people didn't expect from MS (meaning the inclusion of third party stuff).
Also the fact that the ASP.NET MVC framework is itself open sourced (the code is available on Codeplex). I've been using this framework for a recent project at my day job and it's definitely a step in the right direction (i.e. toward design patterns common in other popular web development frameworks such as MVC, pluggable ORM system, use of third-party libraries such as jQuery, clear separation of concerns, and a str…
Have you used Rails or another MVC framework? How does ASP.NET MVC compare?
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the fact that the ASP.NET MVC framework is itself open sourced (the code is available on Codeplex). I've been using this framework for a recent project at my day job and it's definitely a step in the right direction (i.e. toward design patterns common in other popular web development frameworks such as MVC, pluggable ORM system, use of third-party libraries such as jQuery, clear separation of concerns, and a str…
Have you used Rails or another MVC framework? How does ASP.NET MVC compare?
I've dabbled with Rails and Django, but not extensively so I'm not in a position to give a detailed comparison.
The features of ASP.NET MVC as listed "on the box", as it were, sound similar to those in frameworks like Rails and Django. Since the MVC framework is open sourced, I suppose there is nothing stopping somebody from verifying the quality of Microsoft's implementation.
However, this new ASP.NET MVC framework comes out far ahead of the standard ASP.NET WinForms system, whose PageView model was certainly not comparable to frameworks like Rails.
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#8Awesome framework. All the quirkiness of ASP.NET is abstracted away from you (though you can still get to it if you need to). As a Rails developer you'll feel right at home with controllers, views, routing, and tests.
The annoyances:
- ActiveRecord has its downsides but it's easy to use and ASP.NET MVC doesn't come with a similar ORM. LINQ is awkward to learn.
- It doesn't have view partials.
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#9Awesome framework. All the quirkiness of ASP.NET is abstracted away from you (though you can still get to it if you need to). As a Rails developer you'll feel right at home with controllers, views, routing, and tests. The annoyances: - ActiveRecord has its downsides but it's easy to use and ASP.NET MVC doesn't come with a similar ORM. LINQ is awkward to learn. - It doesn't have view partials.
No partials? Or no subcontrollers? What's wrong with RenderPartial() and RenderAction()?
Re: ASP.NET MVC 1.0 Released
#10Awesome framework. All the quirkiness of ASP.NET is abstracted away from you (though you can still get to it if you need to). As a Rails developer you'll feel right at home with controllers, views, routing, and tests. The annoyances: - ActiveRecord has its downsides but it's easy to use and ASP.NET MVC doesn't come with a similar ORM. LINQ is awkward to learn. - It doesn't have view partials.
Use SubSonic if you want ActiveRecord.