Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Source code of ASP.NET

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#51

Post by jf22 »

lucidquiet wrote: post #20
hudo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too little? Biggest change for ASP.NET from release of ASP.NET! "Too much of pain" was the first (and last) thing I said when trying to configure ruby on ubuntu. Or tried to download some app and run it.

I guess all those thousands of Rails apps running on Ubuntu had some kind of magic or secret knowledge to get that working. Going open source and posting some libs on Github is 'Huge'? That's kind of funny considering how much is out there, top notch, and did it way before MS did, and yet, it wasn't "huge" for them.

Its huge because MS has never embraced open source like they are now.

Flying cars would be pretty huge even though planes have already been flying for a while...

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#52

Post by chris_mahan »

gagege wrote: post #47
dested wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Id say its safe to say webforms is dead. The only job openings for it now are legacy systems.

That's what I'm trying to tell this senior developer at work. It's a pain.

In my case, my direct manager. Oh, and not ASP.Net webforms. WinForms, for desktop-deployed software.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#53

Post by eftpotrm »

githulhu wrote: post #21

Not all of ASP.NET though...notably absent: Web Forms.

Trust me; that's a good thing. Nasty, deeply misguided platform - whoever came up with the idea of PostBack and trying to make the web look like VB6 is definitely not on my Christmas card list. Ties you in knots trying to make the web something it fundamentally isn't.

I'll be quiet now, and get back to working on my MVC code. The day when I can finally stop having to work on WebForms code too will be a happy one :-)

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#54

Post by eropple »

brainling wrote: post #19
lucidquiet wrote: post #3

Too little, too late (imo). I'll think about it again once they have visual studio and all the good things running on *.nix. It's too much of a pain to get anything to work with a .net project, and then deploy on anything other than IIS.

Visual Studio a) will never run on Unix, and b) is not required to do .NET development. I know people who do their .NET work in Sublime Text with a nant build chain. It's not my preferred method, but it works great for them. Hell, I know a guy that uses ASP.NET to host an Angular app, and to unify his build system, he has Grunt pick up the heavy lifting of running his MSBuild files whenever he does the pre-deploy ste…

> If you think you need Visual Studio to do .NET development, it's because you fundamentally don't understand the technologies at play and just wanted to say something provocative and witty.

On the off chance you're not just being knee-jerk and defensive because Something You Like is under fire--people think that VS is necessary because life is way too short to spend building something half as good as the other options in twice the time. I mean, could write Scala in TextMate, too, if I had the jones for it. But I could also not, and use IntelliJ, because I value having tools that are able to improve my productivity. (And decrease my frustration; by sticking with the JVM I have the benefit of not have to rely on Mono, whose GC, from experience, I do not trust in long-running processes; after spending a year owning a trivial Mono ASP.NET app that presented no end of troubles, I am very happy not needing to have a watchdog ready to kick it over when it undergoes its daily spaz-out.)

Xamarin Studio is not an acceptable product, either. I've been trying to use it for a couple weeks now and about ready to pitch a computer out a window--the basic functions of editing code are magnificently broken and have been for a long time. Random phantom line breaks in the editor that aren't in the code file, bad auto-indenting, phantom error highlighting, no partial-build error solving--and Visual Studio doesn't work on OS X. (To say nothing of the "you have to restart because XS forgot how to talk to xbuild" bugs...) That leaves the shitty bodges you well-actually'd your way into or not doing .NET at all. The latter makes a lot more sense for a lot more people.

I really enjoy C# and F# and I'd love to use .NET more if the frustrations in using it on not-Windows were not of such a magnitude. I am critical because it should be better and isn't. (Worse, Xamarin removed most reasons to contribute to the Mono ecosystem a while ago by making so much of the useful bits commercial, which is understandable--gotta eat--but also unfortunate.)

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#55

Post by us0r »

lucidquiet wrote: post #31
mkaziz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Hudo's point is that experience with technologies is subjective. I loathe Windows after having been comfortable in terminal, and I loathe Eclipse after having been comfortable in VS.

I've gotten apps working on .net and ubuntu -- configuration was a drag in both, but it works, and isn't the entire basis for loving or hating a platform. So what I'm saying is I agree with your comment. The catch here (and point) is why should you have to switch from VS at all? If it's a real source code editor shouldn't it handle Java, Clojure, Haskell, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc all just fine? Some of the oldes…

" If it's a real source code editor shouldn't it handle Java, Clojure, Haskell, Python, Ruby, JavaScript, etc all just fine?"

http://pytools.codeplex.com/

http://nodejstools.codeplex.com/

They have others but you get the idea.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#56

Post by Jaecen »

skrebbel wrote: post #48

Folks, not much of this is new. Both Entity Framework and ASP.NET MVC were already open source for quite some time [0][1]. All the other repos are nearly empty. The only real news here is that, indeed, ASP.NET vNext is going to be developed in the open, or at least to some extent. But right now, not a lot of code seems to be released that wasn't already out there (although I did not go through all the repos). I don't…

"ASP.NET" is the name of Microsoft's .NET web platform. To answer your rhetorical question, ASP.NET MVC is an MVC framework for Microsoft's .NET web platform. "Microsoft MVC" would not be clearly constrained to web development.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#57

Post by soundoflight »

daigoba66 wrote: post #49

One should note that this is the "new" ASP.NET. The old version, the one explicitly tied to IIS, is not and will probably never be open source software. They're building a new stack from the ground up. Which is the only way, really, to make it "cross platform".

The old one was open sourced a couple months (years?) back and is on CodePlex. http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#58

Post by jasallen »

skrebbel wrote: post #48

Folks, not much of this is new. Both Entity Framework and ASP.NET MVC were already open source for quite some time [0][1]. All the other repos are nearly empty. The only real news here is that, indeed, ASP.NET vNext is going to be developed in the open, or at least to some extent. But right now, not a lot of code seems to be released that wasn't already out there (although I did not go through all the repos). I don't…

ASP.NET MVC shares a ton of the common infrastructure with ASP.NET webforms. It's true that when there was only webforms, there was no need to distinguish and it was all called "ASP.NET". However, MVC and webforms are now two different patterns one can use to structure applications that run on the large, extensive and shared "ASP.NET" infrastructure.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#59

Post by daigoba66 »

soundoflight wrote: post #57
daigoba66 wrote: post #49

One should note that this is the "new" ASP.NET. The old version, the one explicitly tied to IIS, is not and will probably never be open source software. They're building a new stack from the ground up. Which is the only way, really, to make it "cross platform".

The old one was open sourced a couple months (years?) back and is on CodePlex. http://aspnetwebstack.codeplex.com/

Not quite: that's "ASP.NET MVC", the razor view engine, "web pages", and some other libraries like Entity Framework and SignalR. Technically these are just libraries built on the closed-source ASP.NET stack, colloquially known as System.Web, which is essentially IIS.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#60

Post by githulhu »

eftpotrm wrote: post #53
githulhu wrote: post #21

Not all of ASP.NET though...notably absent: Web Forms.

Trust me; that's a good thing. Nasty, deeply misguided platform - whoever came up with the idea of PostBack and trying to make the web look like VB6 is definitely not on my Christmas card list. Ties you in knots trying to make the web something it fundamentally isn't. I'll be quiet now, and get back to working on my MVC code. The day when I can finally stop having to work on WebForms code too will be a happy one :-)

You can't fault it for what it tried to be, though - a plug-and-play, drag-and-drop toolset designed to make web development accessible to savvy end-users and inexperienced developers, at least for what consitutes perhaps 80% of most businesses' needs - simple CRUD apps.

I think there's a lot of value in that, and for as much frustration as maintaining Web Forms apps has caused me (and will continue to cause me) I think it would be neat if they open-sourced it...what's to be lost if the alternative is to just let it rot into obscurity? I would totally fork the repo.

Post reply on HN