Language

Banana fanna fo fanna · March 27, 2004, 10:11 PM

Yes...but why didn't they pick something that DIDN'T suck

I mean, it's ideal for markup, but for RPC calls, please.

And I personally hate PHP, I think it's terrible and no one should ever use it, but then again I make about 90% of my money using it (and 90% of headaches).

quasi-modo · March 28, 2004, 12:47 AM

I think if you want to make money in the career world you should definatly be using Asp.net, because right now Asp is the most popular language for big business (they are the only ones who will shell out cash licensed for win servers

) and Asp.net is far more powerful then classic but is still a fledgeling technology. Wait a little while longer and Asp.net will surpas Asp classic. I am seeing more and more Asp.net questions at http://forums.webdeveloper.com so there is a steeady increase. Asp.net offers the best language flexability of any server side technology and each languages is OO so you can definatly find a syntax you are used to if you have done other scripting and you will be able to do OO no matter what you choose.

Banana fanna fo fanna · March 28, 2004, 08:07 PM

ASP.NET doesn't play nice with graphic designers IMO.

quasi-modo · March 29, 2004, 08:07 PM

asp.net does not play with w3 standards nicely either. I can make my pages valid html 4.01 strict, or hell even xhtml if I wanted too, it is just a pain in the butt. You have to go the extra mile just to make it html4.01 trans... you cant use the built in pageing, validators and other premade stuff about asp.net will not output a type attribute. I guess that is the price you pay though. I should try to make all of my stuff valid xhtml but it would mean ditching the form runat="server" and ditching many asp.net elements, I am willing to go for a lesser doctype for this conveiniance.... Plus I do not want to have to give up my precious form name attribute.

MyndFyre · March 29, 2004, 08:55 PM

Quote from: St0rm.iD on March 28, 2004, 08:07 PM
ASP.NET doesn't play nice with graphic designers IMO.

Sure it does. You create your graphical design/layout in ImageReady and then modify the HTML accordingly.

Quote from: peofeoknight on March 29, 2004, 08:07 PM
asp.net does not play with w3 standards nicely either. I can make my pages valid html 4.01 strict, or hell even xhtml if I wanted too, it is just a pain in the butt. You have to go the extra mile just to make it html4.01 trans... you cant use the built in pageing, validators and other premade stuff about asp.net will not output a type attribute. I guess that is the price you pay though. I should try to make all of my stuff valid xhtml but it would mean ditching the form runat="server" and ditching many asp.net elements, I am willing to go for a lesser doctype for this conveiniance.... Plus I do not want to have to give up my precious form name attribute.

I have never had a problem with emitting valid XHTML.

quasi-modo · March 30, 2004, 05:01 PM

humm, you using a <form runat="server">? Asp.net will output the name attribute so it will cause problems if you want to use xhtml. But there are articles like this http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2003/11/25/39620.aspx floating around so I might be able to solve some problems, but then there is this http://mcmanus.typepad.com/grind/2003/09/xhtml_in_aspnet.html I am a dw user... I might need to play around with some other programs in the future!

Banana fanna fo fanna · March 30, 2004, 08:36 PM

Quote from: Myndfyre on March 29, 2004, 08:55 PM
Quote from: St0rm.iD on March 28, 2004, 08:07 PM
ASP.NET doesn't play nice with graphic designers IMO.

Sure it does. You create your graphical design/layout in ImageReady and then modify the HTML accordingly.

I concede.

iago · March 31, 2004, 10:00 AM

At work they have me using JSP, and I'm rather liking it. I do almost all the work in regular .java files, and the JSP works as a kind of a front end, making calls to the right classes.

Banana fanna fo fanna · March 31, 2004, 02:49 PM

Yeah, that's the way I do things in Python.

quasi-modo · March 31, 2004, 08:34 PM

I am not a fan of Java myself. I know it, infact I was forced to learn it. Colledge board swapped out c++ with Java for AP comp sci, which is pretty weak. But I myself would not go near jsp with asp.net around here because the one really good thing java has going for it is the fact that it is object oriented, but with asp.net you have a similar (but I consider c# to be a bit easier to use though I do most of my stuff in vb.net) syntax, all langs are fully oo, and asp.net completely blows jsp away in speed. Thats just from the comparisons I have read and my experience with c# java and other scripting, feel free to set me straight if you do not aggree with me

. I am one of those pro ms jerks incase you have not realized by now.

iago · April 01, 2004, 12:36 PM

Quote from: peofeoknight on March 31, 2004, 08:34 PM
I am not a fan of Java myself. I know it, infact I was forced to learn it. Colledge board swapped out c++ with Java for AP comp sci, which is pretty weak. But I myself would not go near jsp with asp.net around here because the one really good thing java has going for it is the fact that it is object oriented, but with asp.net you have a similar (but I consider c# to be a bit easier to use though I do most of my stuff in vb.net) syntax, all langs are fully oo, and asp.net completely blows jsp away in speed. Thats just from the comparisons I have read and my experience with c# java and other scripting, feel free to set me straight if you do not aggree with me . I am one of those pro ms jerks incase you have not realized by now.

I don't have to argue. If you don't like Java, you obvoiusly haven't done enough with it. I used to be where you are, too. I got a job requiring Java and completely changed my point of view.

quasi-modo · April 01, 2004, 04:12 PM

Maybe if I had a better teacher or got to learn how to do real world stuff I would be more interested and like it more. We do not even use guis in java, its either in a prompt, or we use an applet... but nothing executable with an interface.

iago · April 01, 2004, 05:55 PM

Quote from: peofeoknight on April 01, 2004, 04:12 PM
Maybe if I had a better teacher or got to learn how to do real world stuff I would be more interested and like it more. We do not even use guis in java, its either in a prompt, or we use an applet... but nothing executable with an interface.

There's nothing wrong with commandlines.

MyndFyre · April 01, 2004, 09:36 PM

Quote from: iago on April 01, 2004, 12:36 PM
I don't have to argue. If you don't like Java, you obvoiusly haven't done enough with it. I used to be where you are, too. I got a job requiring Java and completely changed my point of view.

I like Java well enough (although sometimes the windowing is scary! You should see my first Java window -- you'd laugh hysterically). It's OOP-ability is good, but to be honest, you might want to look at C#, iago. C# = Java + enumerations + custom value-types + methods on value-types + events + type-safe function pointers - ActionListener interface + etc. - some yucky stuff.

That's pseudocode.

Tuberload · April 02, 2004, 01:32 AM

Quote from: Myndfyre on April 01, 2004, 09:36 PM
Quote from: iago on April 01, 2004, 12:36 PM
I don't have to argue. If you don't like Java, you obvoiusly haven't done enough with it. I used to be where you are, too. I got a job requiring Java and completely changed my point of view.

I like Java well enough (although sometimes the windowing is scary! You should see my first Java window -- you'd laugh hysterically). It's OOP-ability is good, but to be honest, you might want to look at C#, iago. C# = Java + enumerations + custom value-types + methods on value-types + events + type-safe function pointers - ActionListener interface + etc. - some yucky stuff.

That's pseudocode.

Java has everything you just stated, and if it doesn't directly support it, you can easily simulate it. Enumerations would be a good example of something easily simulated in Java.

Let's keep in mind were C# came from and why it was developed.