Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 94.5.13.206 - "→Microsoft promotion?: " |
|||
Line 283:
"At the server side, the application may change the viewstate, if the processing requires a change of state of any control."
Huh? This isn't a well formed sentence... <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.224.141.81|99.224.141.81]] ([[User talk:99.224.141.81|talk]]) 17:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Surely there should be a lot more in Criticism than there currently is. The only item in there at the moment has more to do with IIS than ASP.NET, but there are plenty of criticisms regularly levelled against ASP.NET - the viewstate becoming ridiculousy huge, the javascript requirement for many of the controls, the way it messess around with your HTML id's, the fact that even basic validation is done on the server, loss of control over the source, the noticable delay when doing a first compile, relatively high server requirements, the desktop style model is actually rather unsuitable for most websites, and the fact that many of the methods pushed by Microsoft are only required due to this odd development style in the first place. Of course, some of these thins are more of a problem with the way Visual Studo handles ASP.NET solutions, but that hasn't seemed to have stopped anyone using such things as supposed benefits. Half of the benefits listed are only benefits if you don't know how to do it yourself in the firs place. Also, you can get around many of these problems by not using feature X or Y, but if you have to do that for most of the features, you have to ask if you're using the right tchnologies in the first place. Horribly unbalanced shill articles like this are why no-one believes anything they read on Wiki any more.
| |||