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

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#81

Post by skrebbel »

Jaecen wrote: post #56
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.

"Microsoft's .NET web platform"

What does that even mean? In this case, a bunch of libraries and a protocol for dispatching HTTP requests to .NET code.

If I use Mono's XSP server, and use it to host a ServiceStack backend, am I using "the ASP.NET platform"? It's 100% non-Microsoft open source. Am I using ASP.net when I host the same backend on IIS instead? Or when I host ASP.NET MVC (which is just a library) on Mono/XSP?

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#82

Post by CmonDev »

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…

"pretty uninspired Rails port to C#" - but at least it lets you switch between dynamic and static typing.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#83

Post by UweSchmidt »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #34
justathrow2k wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just in, people who aren't impressed by the .NET stack still aren't and continue to not use it.

I don't think some of them even use their preferred development stacks, they are too busy telling you how they don't use .NET.

"I'm a vegan, I do crossfit, I don't own a TV. Oh and I don't use .NET"

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#85

Post by V-2 »

dev360 wrote: post #30
weego wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the thinking behind phrases like "too little, too late" about a company whose tooling will likely span the entire careers of a number of generations of developers.

I say that a lot and I feel like .NET is loosing relevance. Embracing open source and making Linux a first-class citizen in the eco system would be the only way for .NET to increase adoption or stay technologically relevant, and unfortunately its happening too slow.

Without Linux it's surely doomed.

PS. I heard 2015 will be the year of Linux

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#86

Post by macca321 »

mpeg wrote: post #46
dev360 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure you can, but the technology of the future is not being built or run on windows stacks. You find it everywhere in the enterprise, yet almost every big new tech company that has come up in the last 10 years all rely primarily on open source technology.

Xamarin / Mono and Unity run pretty much everywhere. Unity even runs on WebGL, none of this is tied to windows stacks. Also, Microsoft has a great startup programme with Bizspark, we built a company on it a few years ago that eventually ended up as part of a $700m acquisition

And ASP.NET will now run everywhere too (that's one major chunk of this vNext stuff).

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#87

Post by chanced »

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…

"Uninspired rails port" is a far cry from accurate. I've worked with both rails and asp.net mvc. I started with rails in the 1.x days but also had clients that used .net. I despised web forms for a variety of reasons so I jumped on the mvc bandwagon as soon as the fist community preview was released.

Hack, Connery, Hanselman, & Guthrie openly acknowledge that rails was a source of inspiration in their book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470384611?ie=UTF8&tag=scob... but so was Spring, among others. Above all, I think the .net mvc framework was trying to capture the fasted-paced, fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants essence of the rails way more than anything else. In doing so, they unearthed a lot of awesome concepts previously unknown to most .net developers like domain-driven design, tdd/bdd, dependency injection, scaffolding; old hats to Java and ruby guys.

The mvc .net team did an amazing job of breaking stride with the asp.net mentality of letting the framework do as much as possible. Yet .net was still very much confined by it's own structure, forcing the mvc framework to remain rigid. They opted for configuration over convention which, in my opinion, was by far the biggest differentiator in rails to the mvc frameworks that preceded it.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#88

Post by mpeg »

macca321 wrote: post #86
mpeg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Xamarin / Mono and Unity run pretty much everywhere. Unity even runs on WebGL, none of this is tied to windows stacks. Also, Microsoft has a great startup programme with Bizspark, we built a company on it a few years ago that eventually ended up as part of a $700m acquisition

And ASP.NET will now run everywhere too (that's one major chunk of this vNext stuff).

Of course, I was focusing on the current ecosystem. I'm very excited for the future of ASP.NET and C#

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#89

Post by bunderbunder »

jasallen wrote: post #58
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.

As are ASP.NET Web API, and several non-Microsoft projects such as Fubu MVC, NancyFx, or MonoRail.

That said, can't blame anyone for once again being confused by Microsoft's ultra-confusing "give everything the same name" approach to branding.

Re: Source code of ASP.NET

#90

Post by bunderbunder »

chanced wrote: post #87
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…

"Uninspired rails port" is a far cry from accurate. I've worked with both rails and asp.net mvc. I started with rails in the 1.x days but also had clients that used .net. I despised web forms for a variety of reasons so I jumped on the mvc bandwagon as soon as the fist community preview was released. Hack, Connery, Hanselman, & Guthrie openly acknowledge that rails was a source of inspiration in their book http://www…

> They opted for configuration over convention. . .

I believe you meant "convention over configuration", right?

Post reply on HN