I have recently installed the asp.net framework am working on some web pages with the cshtml extension. I also intend to create some .aspx pages.
I am just wondering - if i upload asp-enabled web pages, will users that don’t have asp installed be able to view the pages as intended?
What you can do if you want us to see your code is open your page in a browser, view the source and copy that. It will show the html that the browser gets back from the server. If you are afraid that visitors of your site won’t be able to see your pages, don’t worry, the server will convert your pages into plain html and send it back to their browsers.
I am just wondering - if i upload Perl/Python/Ruby/PHP-enabled web pages, will users that don’t have Perl/Python/Ruby/PHP installed be able to view the pages as intended?
BTW: ASP is rather famous for generating really crappy markup. If your whole page is wrapped in a form with a runat=“server” thingie in it, get rid of it. You don’t need it, and it means invalid markup when you actually have a form on a page, since then you’ll have nested forms, which isn’t allowed. Opera used to puke on that. Today, I think the browser error rendering has figured out to ignore it, but why make them work harder?
Mostly that’s the fault of the .NET sitebuilding tools, which are just as big if not bigger a pile of horse dung than WYSIWYG’s. As in most cases, anything with the term “framework” attached to it when it comes to web development ends up being idiotic rubbish that just leads nubes down the garden path.
I have yet to see that – ESPECIALLY the webforms stuff.
Though admittedly most people just slap it together any old way using visual studio, so it’s not entirely shocking when the end result is the same type of asshat bull you see from frontpage or dreamweaver.
You take the sleazy shortcut, you get the sleazy code – regardless of what language you’re using… it just seems that much like that idiotic coldfusion nonsense, ASP starts out with one hand tied behind it’s back when it comes to good code.
I interviewed recently at a job that was all M$ so including .NET and their old pages were full of the nasty runat-server crap.
They had a slightly newer page elsewhere which, while not wrapping the entire page in form tags, large chunks of the page still were (and no runat=server stuff, just real forms but with waaaaay too much HTML in them). I’m wondering if that was their way around that.
Lastly they had a dedicated mobile site which is very new. There’s no weird form crap going on there. And they haven’t switched platforms, so I’d say yes, it is possible, but only if there’s a strong separation of front and back end.
You know most older computer users use that NOT as an insult, but because M$ did it themselves on the covers of products in the 90’s, right? Besides, if having money isn’t a bad thing, what’s wrong with saying they have it?
BTW: ASP is rather famous for generating really crappy markup.
I guess you haven’t tried ASP.NET MVC? The OP mentioned “the cshtml extension”, which is the file extension used by the new templating engine introduced with ASP.NET MVC 3. Take a look at the syntax - I personally find it more concise than any other templating language I’ve used. You can write all the HTML yourself with ASP.NET MVC. None of it is generated by ASP.NET itself. I really love it, it gets rid of all the postback stuff and the really complex ASP.NET page life cycle, instead replacing it with a traditional MVC design pattern (like you’d find in other languages).