SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45
  1. #1
    ALT.NET - because we need it silver trophybronze trophy dhtmlgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,836
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Notice: This is a discussion thread for comments about the SitePoint article, Web Site Basics: Stuff Beginners Need To Know.
    __________

    Matt, your information about ASP.NET is wrong. ASP.NET WebFroms can spit out compliant Html and you have control over the Html too, so anything you are not happy with you can change. If your not happy with WebForms, the new ASP.NET MVC framework, MonoRail or FubuMvc gives you full control over the Html and gets rid of all the hand holding WebControls.

    While Visual Studio does come at a cost, there are the express editions that deliver the majoirty of functionality required by most developers and there are a host of ways to get a copy of Visual Studio at a very reduced rate or for free (check out http://www.microsoft.com/BizSpark/)

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy devbanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you. That immediately stood out for me. While I don't use ASP.NET currently, it's unfair to ascribe disadvantages to it that it does not hold.

  3. #3
    SitePoint Guru mattymcg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    574
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for your comments guys.

    I didn't say that all ASP.NET code was non standards-compliant. I said that the code Visual Studio generates is "is often inefficient and non-standards compliant". I'm well aware that it's possible to wrestle it into shape, but it takes a bit of effort—effort that a beginner is unlikely to spend. This is true of many tools that auto-generate code.

    I also did mention the express editions in the article.
    I design beautiful, usable interfaces. Oh, and I wrote a kids' book.
    • Follow me on Twitter.
    • Read my blog.
    • Buy my book, Charlie Weatherburn and the Flying Machine.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy devbanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mattymcg View Post
    Thanks for your comments guys.

    I didn't say that all ASP.NET code was non standards-compliant. I said that the code Visual Studio generates is "is often inefficient and non-standards compliant". I'm well aware that it's possible to wrestle it into shape, but it takes a bit of effort—effort that a beginner is unlikely to spend. This is true of many tools that auto-generate code.

    I also did mention the express editions in the article.
    AFAIK, that's not true either. I think it used to be a lot worse with older versions of Visual Studio, but not so with 2008 (and I think even 2005). It generates perfectly valid code, without any "wrestling" it into shape.

  5. #5
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "Even the iPhone [...] is unable to view Flash files."

    I can't agree with an article written by another narrow minded person who belives that every junk Apple releases equals perfection.
    Flash has been running (more or less) on smart phones for several years, but it's too hard for a fanboy to admit the iPhone is too stupid to run Flash.

    Same goes for ASP.NET and Visual Studio... I'm a PHP guy, but I have tried ASP too and, although it didn't convinced me to switch from PHP, I must admit VS is a great tool. Why can't you? Because it's made by Microsoft?

    There are plenty of things to say about the open source Content Management Systems too, many of which are security related! However, I won't waste my time going deeper into this...

    Bottom line is that this article is really shallow, leading the beginners on a wrong path, creating misconceptions, instead of teaching them the basics!

  6. #6
    ¬.¬ shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by prafuitu View Post
    Same goes for ASP.NET...I'm a PHP guy, but I have tried ASP too...
    Just to point out, ASP and ASP.NET are completely different despite the name.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  7. #7
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by the article
    However, unless you have a good reason for learning Perl, I’d suggest steering clear—it’s notorious for being difficult to learn.
    Later on, it basically says the same thing about Rails, except that people who bother to learn it become evangelists. Well, if you bother to learn Perl (like learning to drive, it can be difficult or take a lot of practice but once you learn it, writing stuff is easy, they say), you might become a monk, but I'm sure a monk can be an evangelist as well. And Perl is known for running fast. Ruby... sort of has another reputation : ) Perl's problem is its reputation, and that people who write in Perl don't evangelise enough about it. Though there's a project that's aiming to turn that around...

    Quote Originally Posted by prafuitu
    I can't agree with an article written by another narrow minded person who belives that every junk Apple releases equals perfection.
    Flash has been running (more or less) on smart phones for several years, but it's too hard for a fanboy to admit the iPhone is too stupid to run Flash.
    I thought the point of mentioning the iPhone is it became so popular so quick. Depending on your market, a large percentage of your mobile users might be iPlodders. Which might affect whether you bother with Flash.

    Nonetheless, there is no mention of what type of site MUST as a hard, cold rule, be built 100% in Flash... and that is a luxury site. First thing my boss asked me once they bought me a (hideously expensive!) copy of Flash was, "Can you make a site for us like this?" Uh, wow, no way. But their target group seems to appreciate it-- there's a reason it's called "Flash" and not "Substance" as one crusty I know likes to say. If you're selling surface stuff, Flash puts that message right across.

  8. #8
    Anonymous
    SitePoint Community Guest
    "Realistically, though, the algorithm that determines a web site's PageRank is a closely guarded secret"

    Pretty sure that's 100% not true.

    PageRank is published, and it's based entirely on what sites link to your site, and what sites link to those sites, etc. The algorithms that create the rankings for any given search terms are the closely guarded secret. PageRank is and always has been a component of that algorithm, but many additions have been made that effectively have reduced the weight of PageRank itself.

  9. #9
    Randy Federighi
    SitePoint Community Guest
    Great article! So many clients don't realize how many great effects you can do with jQuery and mimmick Flash a site. I am not against flash, I just use it in places. very helpful info, thank you!

  10. #10
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Black Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,029
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This article is better suited for experienced designers who need to answer questions from those who only know enough to be dangerous, but who control purchasing and design decisions. If I showed this article to a true "web site beginner," it would make their head spin. What it does do well is lay out some arguments pertaining to particular design and site choices -- why your site shouldn't be Flash-based, for example, the advantages and disadvantages of a particular server-side development environment, etc. It will fit well in the arsenal of a developer or designer who has to go into a meeting with Da Bosses and explain why he/she wants to go one way when the honchos have been attracted to something sparkly but unsuitable.

  11. #11
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy devbanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Later on, it basically says the same thing about Rails, except that people who bother to learn it become evangelists. Well, if you bother to learn Perl (like learning to drive, it can be difficult or take a lot of practice but once you learn it, writing stuff is easy, they say), you might become a monk, but I'm sure a monk can be an evangelist as well. And Perl is known for running fast. Ruby... sort of has another reputation : ) Perl's problem is its reputation, and that people who write in Perl don't evangelise enough about it. Though there's a project that's aiming to turn that around...
    Off Topic:

    Darn, now you make me want to relearn Perl. It's been a few years.

  12. #12
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Offtopic: Yeeees! /offtopic

    ...
    At the very least, the article's statement about Perl doesn't tell the reader if it's just a personal bias, a reputation-based statement, or if it's truly not worth learning for someone who's sticking with web stuff. Other than maybe PHP, which seems to be used completely for the web, the other languages listed (and the ones who weren't, Python?) all are capable of (and are used for) doing so much more than just running the back end of a site. Any of them can be "hard" and any of them could be "write-only" (unreadable to others). But that's called bad writing (or entering an Obfuscation Contest, or maybe golf), and is not the fault of the language.

    Ok, I think I'm done with my evangelism now : ) Off to go become a monk.

  13. #13
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,271
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Off to go become a monk.


    Aren't we being a bit harsh with this? Maybe the wording is not perfect for its purpose. I think that Matt only pretended to name some of the technologies that are used in web development so newbies would start to investigate by themselves.

    I do agree that starting with perl or python is a waste of time, not because the languages are bad or hard to learn, but because learning PHP or ASP (any flavour ) first is a more practical approach.

  14. #14
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona
    Aren't we being a bit harsh with this?
    I didn't think I was being harsh at all. I'm working to make Perl my first programming language, and one thing that you see in the Perl community is bad press that often isn't really warrented. Since Perl basically built the web (from the early days) I don't see, on the one hand, why it cannot be practical. On the other hand, it's not web oriented. I don't know enough about ASP/.NET to know how much than language focusses on the web, or website backends. If PHP and ASP/.NET are really aimed at just web back-ends and that sort of thing, that would be useful for a newbie to know and sure, the article could/should say something to that effect.

    But it just said Perl was hard. I wonder if it's "hard" compared to PHP because of how people program in both of them. Maybe this is similar to how Javascript has this reputation of "not being a real language" due to how many people have used it. If it's reputation of the users alone, it's not really fair-- to the language or to people looking to choose one.

    But I wasn't trying to be harsh, just stick up for Perl a bit. It gets downtrodden a lot.

  15. #15
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,271
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    I didn't think I was being harsh at all. I'm working to make Perl my first programming language, and one thing that you see in the Perl community is bad press that often isn't really warrented. Since Perl basically built the web (from the early days) I don't see, on the one hand, why it cannot be practical. On the other hand, it's not web oriented. I don't know enough about ASP/.NET to know how much than language focusses on the web, or website backends. If PHP and ASP/.NET are really aimed at just web back-ends and that sort of thing, that would be useful for a newbie to know and sure, the article could/should say something to that effect.

    But it just said Perl was hard. I wonder if it's "hard" compared to PHP because of how people program in both of them. Maybe this is similar to how Javascript has this reputation of "not being a real language" due to how many people have used it. If it's reputation of the users alone, it's not really fair-- to the language or to people looking to choose one.

    But I wasn't trying to be harsh, just stick up for Perl a bit. It gets downtrodden a lot.
    I wasn't talking specifically about you, but to comments like "another narrow minded person" and "it is really shallow, it leads begginers to the wrong path" or "it is a lie that PageRank is a closely guarded secret"

    Regarding Perl, it is possible that it is hard compared to PHP and ASP. ASP (either classic or .NET) has a learning curve that's similar to PHP (.NET is a bit more sophisticated with more objects, but there's little more to it). ASP and ASP.NET are the part of Visual Basic dedicated to web objects, so they are very web related.

    This is a more practical starting point for back-end programming because they are the languages used in practically all the CMSs so you will have to be facing them at one point or another.

  16. #16
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree...Very interesting post.

  17. #17
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i really don't agree with the 4 things you said about flash disadvantages....not that they are not correct...but really who cares about them when you want a flash site? how many people who creates a website do consider about the disabled users? there are a lot of huge companies who really don't rely on the search engine ranks...why? because they have a brand which is advertised a lot on TV, newspapers, direct ads and so on...the internet may be a good way to advertise but nothing beats the local or national ads. i don't think that this article title is right as well...if i was a beginner and read this article i would be very very confused about the ideas or suggestions you published...at the end i respect your time to write this...

  18. #18
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy devbanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tanicos View Post
    i really don't agree with the 4 things you said about flash disadvantages....not that they are not correct...but really who cares about them when you want a flash site? how many people who creates a website do consider about the disabled users?
    *Ahem* disabled user here...

    Just because they don't care doesn't mean they shouldn't. It is so simple to make a site more accessible, that it is rather stupid not to try to do so. I really don't think there are many reasons today to make a site entirely in flash. Not to say there are no reasons, but that should be one of the last choices, just because of all of the disadvantages.

  19. #19
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    88
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    devbanana please don't feel offended about my post.

  20. #20
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Black Max's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,029
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tanicos View Post
    devbanana please don't feel offended about my post.
    I trust that no one is taking it personally, but the exchange illustrates the tremendous problem with your earlier statement. Within eight minutes, you've lost what would have been a potential client or customer if you were presenting an accessibility-denied business or commercial site, to the point where you're issuing pleas to not be offended. Who knows the depth of loss you would have cost yourself in a real-world, business transaction? When you weigh the advantages vs the disadvantages of a Flash-driven or other non-accessible site:

    shiny and sparkly vs. gives 10-15% of my potential client/customer base access to my site

    it's not much of a decision.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy devbanana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by tanicos View Post
    devbanana please don't feel offended about my post.
    It takes a lot more than that to offend me. I'm just trying to show you that disabled users can't just be ignored. Often it is out of sight, out of mind, but there are actual users with various disabilities out there on the internet, even on these forums.

    Put yourself in a blind user's position, for example. You really want to use a certain web site, but the designers didn't care about disabled users, so you struggle to do so, and eventually just leave. Imagine if every web site had this careless attitude. Instead of the situation we have today, where you would be able to use most web sites, assuming you are competent with a screen reader, you would hardly be able to use anything. You'd be at a severe disadvantage in many areas where you need to find something on the web.

    Of course that's extreme, but that's the risk of such a careless attitude being propagated.

    Again, it doesn't take much to make a site accessible. There is really nothing special about these forums that would make them especially accessible, but they work just fine. What doesn't work just fine, though, is creating a flash-only site.

    Also, I totally agree with Black Max.

  22. #22
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    461
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by devbanana View Post
    AFAIK, that's not true either. I think it used to be a lot worse with older versions of Visual Studio, but not so with 2008 (and I think even 2005). It generates perfectly valid code, without any "wrestling" it into shape.
    Yes it's pretty much ok these days. I still prefer a repeater over a gridview though. The big problem with asp.net imo is the scripting. They have embraced jquery and yet amazingly still never mention the word unobtrusive when they talk about it. Why? Because they are still pushing their own horrible script library for ajax which spews script all over the place. So you see tutorials about using jquery for effects and microsoft js for ajax.

    Custom controls for stuff like date pickers, wysiwyg html textboxes and so on are constantly pushed when a simple script implementation is perfectly adequate and far lighter.

    Overall though I think it's wrong to say the code it generates "is often inefficient and non-standards compliant". It will often be far superior to anything a newbie might code. It's also misleading to talk about the expensive Visual Studio when Visual Web Developer is perfectly adequate for anyone starting out developing web apps with built in standards and accessibility checks, javascript intellisense (including jquery), linq +to sql and now the quite impressive MVC. It's probably the best web development IDE available for free.

  23. #23
    #titanic {float:none} silver trophy
    molona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    from Madrid to Heaven
    Posts
    8,271
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Sorry Brian, but I am getting lost here. You just said that Microsoft pushes its own js library for ajax that throws javascript all over the place. I would say that, in other words, this statment implies that the code it generates "is often inefficient and non-standards compliant". He doesn't say "always", but "often".

    Regarding the superiority of the code... of course it will be better than anything a newbie can build by himself... They are newbies, after all

  24. #24
    SitePoint Evangelist
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    461
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by molona View Post
    Sorry Brian, but I am getting lost here. You just said that Microsoft pushes its own js library for ajax that throws javascript all over the place. I would say that, in other words, this statment implies that the code it generates "is often inefficient and non-standards compliant". He doesn't say "always", but "often".
    In this case it's obtrusive code not inefficient. It generates script inline (all over the place is my phrase for this but then I am Irish) which is not my preference. I can't speak to it's efficiency as I don't use it. One look at the html of a page with ms ajax and it's no thanks for me, I don't care from many others. It's a choice.

    As to newbies and code. As an asp.net developer for the last 10 years I wouldn't be surprised if Linq 2 Sql produced a better sql query than me as it got more complicated.

  25. #25
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hello dhtmlgod thanks for the tips, i am learning Asp.net with Visual studio 2005 but i found lots of problem with Asp you you did any silly mistake or if you forget any single coma etc..it will not debug and it will show lots of errors and to handle a asp site in comparison to PHP site is very difficult and it also consume much resource, here everybody very experienced in web design so i need your help, is there any PHP editor available which is similar to Visual Studio i mean , I am searching for such type of PHP editor where there will be Drag and Drop option like Visual Studio so If you know about such type of software kindly Reply here.Hope You will help Me.
    Thanks.
    Submit Articles


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •