Comments on: To MVC or to WebForms? http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/ Software development, testing, and techie life Thu, 08 Mar 2012 22:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Generic Viagra http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-1347 Generic Viagra Wed, 29 Jun 2011 03:31:00 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-1347 We are quite testable code where I work now the problem is that our interface code does not require many different layers. For all the code completely verifiable, we have what we call a spade control / driver in the top of the business layer. The couple in the control unit / command and is testable or can be tested separately. The disadvantage is more code to write more than one standard or MVC MVP.   We are quite testable code where I work now the problem is that our interface code does not require many different layers. For all the code completely verifiable, we have what we call a spade control / driver in the top of the business layer. The couple in the control unit / command and is testable or can be tested separately. The disadvantage is more code to write more than one standard or MVC MVP.
 

]]> By: Dylan Thomas http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-972 Dylan Thomas Sun, 17 May 2009 01:28:27 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-972 We have pretty testable code where I work now the downside is that our non UI code needs to many separate layers. To make all code completely testable we have what we call a Control/Controller layaer on top of a business layer. The control/controller pair is testable and a unit or they can be testet individually. The downside is more code has to be written compared to a more standard MVC or MVP pattern. We have pretty testable code where I work now the downside is that our non UI code needs to many separate layers. To make all code completely testable we have what we call a Control/Controller layaer on top of a business layer. The control/controller pair is testable and a unit or they can be testet individually. The downside is more code has to be written compared to a more standard MVC or MVP pattern.

]]> By: Andrew http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-971 Andrew Mon, 04 May 2009 16:48:22 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-971 It's easy to beat up on a post like Francis's, but unfortunately (assuming this isn't a well crafted troll post), this is the way a lot of people think in the corporate world. Since ASP.NET MVC is new, plenty of people assume that MVC is new and hence a "fad" (something I've read multiple times in multiple places not just this one post). Obviously that is not the case, but for enough people out there, perception is reality. It’s easy to beat up on a post like Francis’s, but unfortunately (assuming this isn’t a well crafted troll post), this is the way a lot of people think in the corporate world.

Since ASP.NET MVC is new, plenty of people assume that MVC is new and hence a “fad” (something I’ve read multiple times in multiple places not just this one post). Obviously that is not the case, but for enough people out there, perception is reality.

]]> By: Cristian Prieto http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-970 Cristian Prieto Mon, 04 May 2009 14:09:19 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-970 Is Francis a troll? Or the last hope for the mort webforms developers out there????? I agree with Peter, Francis' comment is too perfectly full of mistakes and ignorance enough to make it suspect of "machine generated" :P Is Francis a troll? Or the last hope for the mort webforms developers out there?????

I agree with Peter, Francis’ comment is too perfectly full of mistakes and ignorance enough to make it suspect of “machine generated” :P

]]> By: Peter Bromberg http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-969 Peter Bromberg Mon, 04 May 2009 12:40:47 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-969 Francis, To MVC, or not to MVC: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous Webforms, Or to take arms against a sea of lambdas, And by opposing end them? To code: to MVC; No more; and by MVC to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That WebForms is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. Francis,
To MVC, or not to MVC: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Webforms,
Or to take arms against a sea of lambdas,
And by opposing end them? To code: to MVC;
No more; and by MVC to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That WebForms is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d.

]]> By: Tim Scott http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-968 Tim Scott Sat, 02 May 2009 04:23:51 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-968 I predict we never see Francis' blog. Maybe we just won't recognize it since he has no last name. I'll be scanning the Web for "47 Places In The WebForms Lifecycle You Can Inject Code" or "Making The Web Stateful In 5Mb Of Viewstate Or Less" by Francis. I predict we never see Francis’ blog. Maybe we just won’t recognize it since he has no last name. I’ll be scanning the Web for “47 Places In The WebForms Lifecycle You Can Inject Code” or “Making The Web Stateful In 5Mb Of Viewstate Or Less” by Francis.

]]> By: Peter http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-967 Peter Fri, 01 May 2009 16:33:19 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-967 Francis, please note that Chad's been very nice and accommodating in this post, so I think you're venting general frustrations, not aiming at Chad. In his post, he didn't even say WebForms is bad, instead just noting that some people are frustrated by it. At this point I'm suspicious "Francis" is a troll, that comment is too perfect. Francis, please note that Chad’s been very nice and accommodating in this post, so I think you’re venting general frustrations, not aiming at Chad. In his post, he didn’t even say WebForms is bad, instead just noting that some people are frustrated by it.

At this point I’m suspicious “Francis” is a troll, that comment is too perfect.

]]> By: Elliott O'Hara http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-966 Elliott O'Hara Fri, 01 May 2009 16:17:31 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-966 @ Francis Sorry, you don't get a free pass on calling people inexperienced and arrogant, then post that. The leaders in the Alt.Net crowd's experience is very well documented. Can't say the same for you... Your comment makes my point further, and goes to Jeremy's "Lie Sauce" idea. "You can choose to do things before or after the page is initialized, before or after it's loaded, before or after it's rendered, after it's unloaded, etc." What does "initialized" mean? How is that different from "Loaded"? What does "Unloaded" mean? For the record, I know the answers to these, and understand Asp.Net webforms lifecycle quite well. The point is, understanding this does NOTHING for functionality in an app. Understanding it is a necessity to using the abstraction that is webforms. An abstraction that is more complicated that what it intended to hide. You say it's "NECESSARY", but haven't proved it, the only reason it's "NECESSARY" is because MS made it so with the pointless abstraction of HTTP POSTS and GETS. "With Classic ASP I could just copy an asp file from one directory to another and change the connection string or maybe the table names. " This comment is a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the fundamentals of good design principles, I probably wouldn't have said that in the same post that you called others inexperienced. Best of luck though! @ Francis Sorry, you don’t get a free pass on calling people inexperienced and arrogant, then post that. The leaders in the Alt.Net crowd’s experience is very well documented. Can’t say the same for you…

Your comment makes my point further, and goes to Jeremy’s “Lie Sauce” idea.

“You can choose to do things before or after the page is initialized, before or after it’s loaded, before or after it’s rendered, after it’s unloaded, etc.”

What does “initialized” mean? How is that different from “Loaded”? What does “Unloaded” mean?

For the record, I know the answers to these, and understand Asp.Net webforms lifecycle quite well. The point is, understanding this does NOTHING for functionality in an app. Understanding it is a necessity to using the abstraction that is webforms. An abstraction that is more complicated that what it intended to hide.

You say it’s “NECESSARY”, but haven’t proved it, the only reason it’s “NECESSARY” is because MS made it so with the pointless abstraction of HTTP POSTS and GETS.

“With Classic ASP I could just copy an asp file from one directory to another and change the connection string or maybe the table names. ”

This comment is a demonstration of your lack of understanding of the fundamentals of good design principles, I probably wouldn’t have said that in the same post that you called others inexperienced.

Best of luck though!

]]> By: Ben Scheirman http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-965 Ben Scheirman Fri, 01 May 2009 16:08:15 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-965 Francis, Your ability to jam-pack so much ignorance in a single blog comment is astounding. You should definitely start a blog. Come out of the shadows and save the world from the MVC beast! Francis,

Your ability to jam-pack so much ignorance in a single blog comment is astounding. You should definitely start a blog. Come out of the shadows and save the world from the MVC beast!

]]> By: Francis http://lostechies.com/chadmyers/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms/#comment-964 Francis Fri, 01 May 2009 15:53:17 +0000 /blogs/chad_myers/archive/2009/04/27/to-mvc-or-to-webforms.aspx#comment-964 Chad and others, It's clear that this post and many of these comments are fueled by your arrogance, ignorance and inexperience. If you had been around as long as I have you would know that ASP.NET MVC is just a fad that many people are hopping on because all the "cool kids" are doing it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are producing quality software at a significantly faster pace. ASP.NET MVC is just a slight rehash of Classic ASP. Classic ASP had it's problems then and ASP.NET MVC has it's problems now. For one, both things are leaky abstractions. They do a poor job of abstracting the way that we think about UI and the way that win forms does UI. If a control (like a text box) cannot remember that it is supposed to be blue after someone clicks a button, who will? Storing it in the database is just crazy. If you had enough experience you would realize that ViewState and ControlState are NECESSARY. It is a limitation of the internet that they must be created, but without them web pages must rely on hacks to provide real functionality. Another big issue for me is that ASP.NET MVC does not allow you the same flexibility that webforms does. For example, in WebForms you have the flexibility to inject code in so many places. You can choose to do things before or after the page is initialized, before or after it's loaded, before or after it's rendered, after it's unloaded, etc. With MVC you can do what, stuff before an action or after? Come on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the flexibility and power that webforms affords you. Another glaring issue is code reuse. With MVC there is soooo much stuff I need to do in order to reuse a page in another project. Even Classic ASP got this better. With Classic ASP I could just copy an asp file from one directory to another and change the connection string or maybe the table names. That was it! Easy! It's a bit harder with webforms, but if you do everything right (use datasources, databinding, etc) then you usually only have to copy the aspx and the aspx.cs page. Also very easy. This is great because it allows really good collaboration between friends on their projects. I really feel like I should come out of the shadows and start a blog so that I can try to fight off this FUD/misinformation that is being spewed from the "ALT.NET" crowd. Chad and others,

It’s clear that this post and many of these comments are fueled by your arrogance, ignorance and inexperience.

If you had been around as long as I have you would know that ASP.NET MVC is just a fad that many people are hopping on because all the “cool kids” are doing it. Meanwhile, the rest of us are producing quality software at a significantly faster pace.

ASP.NET MVC is just a slight rehash of Classic ASP. Classic ASP had it’s problems then and ASP.NET MVC has it’s problems now. For one, both things are leaky abstractions. They do a poor job of abstracting the way that we think about UI and the way that win forms does UI. If a control (like a text box) cannot remember that it is supposed to be blue after someone clicks a button, who will? Storing it in the database is just crazy. If you had enough experience you would realize that ViewState and ControlState are NECESSARY. It is a limitation of the internet that they must be created, but without them web pages must rely on hacks to provide real functionality.

Another big issue for me is that ASP.NET MVC does not allow you the same flexibility that webforms does. For example, in WebForms you have the flexibility to inject code in so many places. You can choose to do things before or after the page is initialized, before or after it’s loaded, before or after it’s rendered, after it’s unloaded, etc. With MVC you can do what, stuff before an action or after? Come on. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the flexibility and power that webforms affords you.

Another glaring issue is code reuse. With MVC there is soooo much stuff I need to do in order to reuse a page in another project. Even Classic ASP got this better. With Classic ASP I could just copy an asp file from one directory to another and change the connection string or maybe the table names. That was it! Easy! It’s a bit harder with webforms, but if you do everything right (use datasources, databinding, etc) then you usually only have to copy the aspx and the aspx.cs page. Also very easy. This is great because it allows really good collaboration between friends on their projects.

I really feel like I should come out of the shadows and start a blog so that I can try to fight off this FUD/misinformation that is being spewed from the “ALT.NET” crowd.

]]>