One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com
Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!!
Back-up your data and, when you bike,
always wear white.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
Monday, May 20, 2002
I'm starting to see why you bump into so many people mired in "yesterday's technologies". Hey, ASP.NET is full of great ideas, but when an end user finally comes to my site what's the difference to them between a site written with ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and SQL Server 2000 and something written in ASP 3.0, ADO, and SQL 6.5? Or, for all that matter, php or *gasp* Perl with mySQL or postgresql?
The bottom line is that there's no reason at all why there has to be a difference! Html is html, no matter where it's coming from, and I think you've seen enough complaining about the asp.net controls enough to know that .NET's promise of quicker sites doesn't always pan out in universally accessible, well-programmed sites. Why not keep on leveraging your "old" techs?
And all this jive the .NETters "expect" you to read. I've seen about 300 articles on the datagrid and goodness knows how many claiming to show how to access COM, etc, from .NET "managed code". This is silly stuff. If you've got a site to make today, why learn to translate yesterday's tried and true tools when that's time you coulda been spending speaking your proverbial native tongue?
Again, this is not to say I don't enjoy relentlessly reading .NET and C# articles when I have time, but I certainly see why people might still be using COBOL every now and again.
posted by ruffin
at 5/20/2002 11:27:00 AM
The postings on this site are [usually] my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, past or present, or other entity. About Our Author