Talk:ASP.NET: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:30, 10 July 2010

Revision as of 12:11, 22 November 2010

Line 57:

:The Wikipedia article on ASP.NET is not an appropriate place for a discussion about competing technologies, any more than the article on PHP or Ruby on Rails are. [[User:Warrens|Warrens]] 08:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:: What? The Wikipedia article on ASP.NET is probably the single most appropriate place to discuss competing technologes, just as it is for PHP or Ruby on Rails. It's supposed to be a fair balanced review of ASP.NET, which must include how it compares to other alternatives. You wouldn't know it from this article, but it's not an advertising platform. This can be seen in the Criticism section - is anyone here really trying to say the only criticism of ASP.NET is that prior to .NET 2.0, the controls didn't generate perfect markup?

:I agree. It's not just that it's highly pro-MSFT, with all of the benefits listed ( and no context about how important they might be ) - it's also tiresome to read. I'm doing my part to improve the article, as a person who programs against ASP.NET every day. My goal is to bring a more neutral point of view, but also to make the content in this article more useful. As such, I'll be adding an article called '''Criticisms''' or '''Gotchas''' or something to that effect, of common mistakes or problems and how to deal with them. This could be seen as anti-MSFT ( which I'm not, since I choose to work with their technology ) but I'm doing it to make the page useful to ASP.NET users, not marketing people. [[User:DigitalEnthusiast|DigitalEnthusiast]] 20:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)