|
.net
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
application architecture in asp.netHi all,
I have couple of questions about architecting web application using asp.net 1. is ther any performance gain in using c# over vb.net 2. best way to handle transactions in .net? using ado level or COM+ 3. I have looked at MS Data Access Application Block - where you return DataSet/Data Reader as the value of the function - shouldn't that be by Ref ? Thanks in advance. CaptainDeep 1. No
2. If you don't need COM+, don't do it. That will of course not perform as well as just ADO transactions because of the overhead. 3. I have never used it, so I can't comment. I would assume that enough people are using it that the spec is correct, although you never know. If you are just returning a value from a function, then I don't see how ByRef is a factor. Show quote "CaptainDeep" <CaptainD***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:2C84A7EB-D221-4DA8-AD9F-D550B0BEE8DC@microsoft.com... > Hi all, > I have couple of questions about architecting web application using > asp.net > > 1. is ther any performance gain in using c# over vb.net > 2. best way to handle transactions in .net? using ado level or COM+ > 3. I have looked at MS Data Access Application Block - where you return > DataSet/Data Reader as the value of the function - shouldn't that be by > Ref ? > > Thanks in advance. > CaptainDeep 3. ByVal/ByRef don't mean what you think they do when dealing with a
reference object. When you are dealing with a value type (your own structures, int32, bool, ....) then it means exactly what you think it does. When dealing with everything else (dataSets, hashtables...) it's deceivingly different. When dealing with reference types, you are ALWAYS passing around the pointer (or by reference). The difference though is that if you pass it ByRef, it's the orignal pointer is passed. When you pass ByVal, it's a copy of the pointer. In either case, modifying the argument will modify the original object. However, if you modify WHERE the reference points to in ByVal, it won't change the original. Karl Show quote "Marina Levit [MVP]" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message news:%23AdTStFoGHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > 1. No > 2. If you don't need COM+, don't do it. That will of course not perform as > well as just ADO transactions because of the overhead. > 3. I have never used it, so I can't comment. I would assume that enough > people are using it that the spec is correct, although you never know. If > you are just returning a value from a function, then I don't see how ByRef > is a factor. > > "CaptainDeep" <CaptainD***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:2C84A7EB-D221-4DA8-AD9F-D550B0BEE8DC@microsoft.com... >> Hi all, >> I have couple of questions about architecting web application using >> asp.net >> >> 1. is ther any performance gain in using c# over vb.net >> 2. best way to handle transactions in .net? using ado level or COM+ >> 3. I have looked at MS Data Access Application Block - where you return >> DataSet/Data Reader as the value of the function - shouldn't that be by >> Ref ? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> CaptainDeep > > "Marina Levit [MVP]" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message That's a lie. Both VB.NET and C# have performance benefits unique to each news:%23AdTStFoGHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > 1. No language. The problem has at least three criteria... 1.) Microsoft MVPs are often liars; either simply too lazy to tell the truth and discuss the facts or pathological liars that tell so many lies they don't know how to tell the difference. 2.) Finding the real facts and determining how important the facts are to application development is difficult, especially when there are so many liars around and especially with the release of ASP.NET 2.0 which has failed to produce lucid and trustworthy documentation. An application may significantly depend on certain characteristics of a language that another language does not support or does poorly. 3.) The big lie that is told most often is "the framework is the same for both languages so it doesn't matter if VB is used or if C# is used." That #3 is the biggest lie because it is false for reasons I've already stated and it is also a lie because Microsoft is playing games by providing features to support VB for example but not C# and then they provide features that support C# but not VB. When one group starts complaining Microsoft then adds the missing features to the language but it is then discovered they only did maybe half of what the other language supported. They did this for refactoring code for example when refactoring was first released for C# which made the VB advocates start complaining. So Microsoft then they left C# alone and made all kinds of refactoring support available for VB that C# does not yet support unless buying it from 3rd parties. Then the MVP liars tell their lies to deceive people instead of just telling the truth. This ca-ca de baca is getting old. IMO C# should be used when developing web applications simply because web applications require significant client-side script written using JavaScript which is nearly exactly the same as C# so one learns three languages for the price of one: Java, C# and JavaScript. AJAX/Atlas for example can be simple to deploy but when extensibility is required mastery and expertise using JavaScript is required. The developer that has learned C# then become more productive as they already know how to use the syntax and grammar. Finally, the .NET Framework has been a commercial failure for Windows Forms development sold commercially because the source code is so easy to obtain. Anybody can dispute that of course but to do so truthfully requires answering the big question "Where are the commercial Windows Forms applications sold by the main-stream vendors?" At this point we are compelled to conclude .NET is a commercial failure for all but ASP.NET web applications where the source code need not be exposed and as I contend the use of C# is the wiser choice in that context. <%= Clinton Gallagher NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/ <snip /> I disagree with this. For most of the things you would ever do, there would
be no difference. To start listing out all the scenarios under which one is performing .01% faster confuses the issue. I see few cases where language choice actually makes a difference in terms of how fast your application runs. And in terms of providing support for features and one language or another, that was not the question asked. I find the argument that C# should be used for web applications because its syntax is somewhat similar to javascript silly. Ok, it has curly braces, but in reality, so much of the syntax is different, and what javascript can and can't do is far different from C#. In reality, if you chose one language over the other, your typical application won't perform any different and your users won't notice. You seem quite angry, and I really don't see a reason why. You sound like you despise .NET altogether. Show quote "clintonG" <csgallag***@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message news:uy1fzAGoGHA.4728@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > "Marina Levit [MVP]" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:%23AdTStFoGHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> 1. No > > That's a lie. Both VB.NET and C# have performance benefits unique to each > language. The problem has at least three criteria... > > 1.) Microsoft MVPs are often liars; either simply too lazy to tell the > truth and discuss the facts or pathological liars that tell so many lies > they don't know how to tell the difference. > > 2.) Finding the real facts and determining how important the facts are to > application development is difficult, especially when there are so many > liars around and especially with the release of ASP.NET 2.0 which has > failed to produce lucid and trustworthy documentation. An application may > significantly depend on certain characteristics of a language that another > language does not support or does poorly. > > 3.) The big lie that is told most often is "the framework is the same for > both languages so it doesn't matter if VB is used or if C# is used." > > That #3 is the biggest lie because it is false for reasons I've already > stated and it is also a lie because Microsoft is playing games by > providing features to support VB for example but not C# and then they > provide features that support C# but not VB. When one group starts > complaining Microsoft then adds the missing features to the language but > it is then discovered they only did maybe half of what the other language > supported. They did this for refactoring code for example when refactoring > was first released for C# which made the VB advocates start complaining. > So Microsoft then they left C# alone and made all kinds of refactoring > support available for VB that C# does not yet support unless buying it > from 3rd parties. > > Then the MVP liars tell their lies to deceive people instead of just > telling the truth. > > This ca-ca de baca is getting old. > > IMO C# should be used when developing web applications simply because web > applications require significant client-side script written using > JavaScript which is nearly exactly the same as C# so one learns three > languages for the price of one: Java, C# and JavaScript. AJAX/Atlas for > example can be simple to deploy but when extensibility is required mastery > and expertise using JavaScript is required. The developer that has learned > C# then become more productive as they already know how to use the syntax > and grammar. > > Finally, the .NET Framework has been a commercial failure for Windows > Forms development sold commercially because the source code is so easy to > obtain. Anybody can dispute that of course but to do so truthfully > requires answering the big question "Where are the commercial Windows > Forms applications sold by the main-stream vendors?" At this point we are > compelled to conclude .NET is a commercial failure for all but ASP.NET web > applications where the source code need not be exposed and as I contend > the use of C# is the wiser choice in that context. > > <%= Clinton Gallagher > NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com > URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/ > > > <snip /> > Clinton:
I'm surprised by your views on this as a whole. I also think you are coming down a little hard. Anyways...you have grievances maybe I can help address them? That aside, perhaps you could educate this ignorant helper about what situations C# performs so much better than VB.NET? Maybe you're talking about the ability to manipulate pointers directly? I neither consider myself lazy nor a liar, but I would have given the same answer as Marina. Of course, I still have a lot to learn, and I'm willing to in this case. Karl Show quote "clintonG" <csgallag***@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message news:uy1fzAGoGHA.4728@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > "Marina Levit [MVP]" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:%23AdTStFoGHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> 1. No > > That's a lie. Both VB.NET and C# have performance benefits unique to each > language. The problem has at least three criteria... > > 1.) Microsoft MVPs are often liars; either simply too lazy to tell the > truth and discuss the facts or pathological liars that tell so many lies > they don't know how to tell the difference. > > 2.) Finding the real facts and determining how important the facts are to > application development is difficult, especially when there are so many > liars around and especially with the release of ASP.NET 2.0 which has > failed to produce lucid and trustworthy documentation. An application may > significantly depend on certain characteristics of a language that another > language does not support or does poorly. > > 3.) The big lie that is told most often is "the framework is the same for > both languages so it doesn't matter if VB is used or if C# is used." > > That #3 is the biggest lie because it is false for reasons I've already > stated and it is also a lie because Microsoft is playing games by > providing features to support VB for example but not C# and then they > provide features that support C# but not VB. When one group starts > complaining Microsoft then adds the missing features to the language but > it is then discovered they only did maybe half of what the other language > supported. They did this for refactoring code for example when refactoring > was first released for C# which made the VB advocates start complaining. > So Microsoft then they left C# alone and made all kinds of refactoring > support available for VB that C# does not yet support unless buying it > from 3rd parties. > > Then the MVP liars tell their lies to deceive people instead of just > telling the truth. > > This ca-ca de baca is getting old. > > IMO C# should be used when developing web applications simply because web > applications require significant client-side script written using > JavaScript which is nearly exactly the same as C# so one learns three > languages for the price of one: Java, C# and JavaScript. AJAX/Atlas for > example can be simple to deploy but when extensibility is required mastery > and expertise using JavaScript is required. The developer that has learned > C# then become more productive as they already know how to use the syntax > and grammar. > > Finally, the .NET Framework has been a commercial failure for Windows > Forms development sold commercially because the source code is so easy to > obtain. Anybody can dispute that of course but to do so truthfully > requires answering the big question "Where are the commercial Windows > Forms applications sold by the main-stream vendors?" At this point we are > compelled to conclude .NET is a commercial failure for all but ASP.NET web > applications where the source code need not be exposed and as I contend > the use of C# is the wiser choice in that context. > > <%= Clinton Gallagher > NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com > URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/ > > > <snip /> > The point to be made -- again -- is there can be performance gains using
features that are supported by one language and not the other at a given point in time. That given point in time may not allow the luxury of waiting for a preferred language to catch-up to the other. Perhaps the abscence of the application may cost the company tens of thousands a day for example. This is not unheard of. So should we wait until VB catches up to C#? Should we wait until C# catches up with VB? I've read comments from developers who have claimed generics for example have improved the performance of their application. As you know support for generics is an example of the leap-frog features that prove my assertion of the facts. Who am I to say what language feature may or may not prove critical at some given point in time? Regardless of who any of us are or what we think we know or prefer does not change the fact that all that needs to be said -- if being truthful -- is to explain the facts that language features are circumstantial and without question there are indeed differences between VB and C# at any given point in time just as there are with other common type compliant languages. Does repeating the lie that denies the facts over and over again make the lie a truthful statement? Maybe Microsoft should rename the framework SoundByte.NET because few care to simply explain the facts as they really are. I've become sensitive to these principles lately. <%= Clinton "Karl Seguin [MVP]" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME Show quote net> wrote in message news:OSJYJCHoGHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > Clinton: > I'm surprised by your views on this as a whole. I also think you are > coming down a little hard. Anyways...you have grievances maybe I can help > address them? > > That aside, perhaps you could educate this ignorant helper about what > situations C# performs so much better than VB.NET? Maybe you're talking > about the ability to manipulate pointers directly? I neither consider > myself lazy nor a liar, but I would have given the same answer as Marina. > Of course, I still have a lot to learn, and I'm willing to in this case. > > Karl > > -- > http://www.openmymind.net/ > http://www.fuelindustries.com/ > > > "clintonG" <csgallag***@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message > news:uy1fzAGoGHA.4728@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> "Marina Levit [MVP]" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:%23AdTStFoGHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> 1. No >> >> That's a lie. Both VB.NET and C# have performance benefits unique to each >> language. The problem has at least three criteria... >> >> 1.) Microsoft MVPs are often liars; either simply too lazy to tell the >> truth and discuss the facts or pathological liars that tell so many lies >> they don't know how to tell the difference. >> >> 2.) Finding the real facts and determining how important the facts are to >> application development is difficult, especially when there are so many >> liars around and especially with the release of ASP.NET 2.0 which has >> failed to produce lucid and trustworthy documentation. An application may >> significantly depend on certain characteristics of a language that >> another language does not support or does poorly. >> >> 3.) The big lie that is told most often is "the framework is the same for >> both languages so it doesn't matter if VB is used or if C# is used." >> >> That #3 is the biggest lie because it is false for reasons I've already >> stated and it is also a lie because Microsoft is playing games by >> providing features to support VB for example but not C# and then they >> provide features that support C# but not VB. When one group starts >> complaining Microsoft then adds the missing features to the language but >> it is then discovered they only did maybe half of what the other language >> supported. They did this for refactoring code for example when >> refactoring was first released for C# which made the VB advocates start >> complaining. So Microsoft then they left C# alone and made all kinds of >> refactoring support available for VB that C# does not yet support unless >> buying it from 3rd parties. >> >> Then the MVP liars tell their lies to deceive people instead of just >> telling the truth. >> >> This ca-ca de baca is getting old. >> >> IMO C# should be used when developing web applications simply because web >> applications require significant client-side script written using >> JavaScript which is nearly exactly the same as C# so one learns three >> languages for the price of one: Java, C# and JavaScript. AJAX/Atlas for >> example can be simple to deploy but when extensibility is required >> mastery and expertise using JavaScript is required. The developer that >> has learned C# then become more productive as they already know how to >> use the syntax and grammar. >> >> Finally, the .NET Framework has been a commercial failure for Windows >> Forms development sold commercially because the source code is so easy to >> obtain. Anybody can dispute that of course but to do so truthfully >> requires answering the big question "Where are the commercial Windows >> Forms applications sold by the main-stream vendors?" At this point we are >> compelled to conclude .NET is a commercial failure for all but ASP.NET >> web applications where the source code need not be exposed and as I >> contend the use of C# is the wiser choice in that context. >> >> <%= Clinton Gallagher >> NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com >> URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/ >> >> >> <snip /> >> > > Finally, we agree, there's no difference in performance between c# and
vb.net ! Karl Show quote "clintonG" <csgallag***@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in message news:uOPs3CToGHA.1052@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > The point to be made -- again -- is there can be performance gains using > features that are supported by one language and not the other at a given > point in time. That given point in time may not allow the luxury of > waiting for a preferred language to catch-up to the other. Perhaps the > abscence of the application may cost the company tens of thousands a day > for example. This is not unheard of. So should we wait until VB catches up > to C#? Should we wait until C# catches up with VB? > > I've read comments from developers who have claimed generics for example > have improved the performance of their application. As you know support > for generics is an example of the leap-frog features that prove my > assertion of the facts. Who am I to say what language feature may or may > not prove critical at some given point in time? Regardless of who any of > us are or what we think we know or prefer does not change the fact that > all that needs to be said -- if being truthful -- is to explain the facts > that language features are circumstantial and without question there are > indeed differences between VB and C# at any given point in time just as > there are with other common type compliant languages. > > Does repeating the lie that denies the facts over and over again make the > lie a truthful statement? Maybe Microsoft should rename the framework > SoundByte.NET because few care to simply explain the facts as they really > are. I've become sensitive to these principles lately. > > <%= Clinton > > > "Karl Seguin [MVP]" <karl REMOVE @ REMOVE openmymind REMOVEMETOO . ANDME > net> wrote in message news:OSJYJCHoGHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> Clinton: >> I'm surprised by your views on this as a whole. I also think you are >> coming down a little hard. Anyways...you have grievances maybe I can help >> address them? >> >> That aside, perhaps you could educate this ignorant helper about what >> situations C# performs so much better than VB.NET? Maybe you're talking >> about the ability to manipulate pointers directly? I neither consider >> myself lazy nor a liar, but I would have given the same answer as Marina. >> Of course, I still have a lot to learn, and I'm willing to in this case. >> >> Karl >> >> -- >> http://www.openmymind.net/ >> http://www.fuelindustries.com/ >> >> >> "clintonG" <csgallag***@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> wrote in >> message news:uy1fzAGoGHA.4728@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >>> "Marina Levit [MVP]" <someone@nospam.com> wrote in message >>> news:%23AdTStFoGHA.4848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> 1. No >>> >>> That's a lie. Both VB.NET and C# have performance benefits unique to >>> each language. The problem has at least three criteria... >>> >>> 1.) Microsoft MVPs are often liars; either simply too lazy to tell the >>> truth and discuss the facts or pathological liars that tell so many lies >>> they don't know how to tell the difference. >>> >>> 2.) Finding the real facts and determining how important the facts are >>> to application development is difficult, especially when there are so >>> many liars around and especially with the release of ASP.NET 2.0 which >>> has failed to produce lucid and trustworthy documentation. An >>> application may significantly depend on certain characteristics of a >>> language that another language does not support or does poorly. >>> >>> 3.) The big lie that is told most often is "the framework is the same >>> for both languages so it doesn't matter if VB is used or if C# is used." >>> >>> That #3 is the biggest lie because it is false for reasons I've already >>> stated and it is also a lie because Microsoft is playing games by >>> providing features to support VB for example but not C# and then they >>> provide features that support C# but not VB. When one group starts >>> complaining Microsoft then adds the missing features to the language but >>> it is then discovered they only did maybe half of what the other >>> language supported. They did this for refactoring code for example when >>> refactoring was first released for C# which made the VB advocates start >>> complaining. So Microsoft then they left C# alone and made all kinds of >>> refactoring support available for VB that C# does not yet support unless >>> buying it from 3rd parties. >>> >>> Then the MVP liars tell their lies to deceive people instead of just >>> telling the truth. >>> >>> This ca-ca de baca is getting old. >>> >>> IMO C# should be used when developing web applications simply because >>> web applications require significant client-side script written using >>> JavaScript which is nearly exactly the same as C# so one learns three >>> languages for the price of one: Java, C# and JavaScript. AJAX/Atlas for >>> example can be simple to deploy but when extensibility is required >>> mastery and expertise using JavaScript is required. The developer that >>> has learned C# then become more productive as they already know how to >>> use the syntax and grammar. >>> >>> Finally, the .NET Framework has been a commercial failure for Windows >>> Forms development sold commercially because the source code is so easy >>> to obtain. Anybody can dispute that of course but to do so truthfully >>> requires answering the big question "Where are the commercial Windows >>> Forms applications sold by the main-stream vendors?" At this point we >>> are compelled to conclude .NET is a commercial failure for all but >>> ASP.NET web applications where the source code need not be exposed and >>> as I contend the use of C# is the wiser choice in that context. >>> >>> <%= Clinton Gallagher >>> NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com >>> URL http://www.metromilwaukee.com/clintongallagher/ >>> >>> >>> <snip /> >>> >> >> > > So, if I'm to summarize, you're saying that in reality each language
supports [some] features unique to the language that may provide a performance benefit for a specific situation. Therefore, there *can* be a performance advantage to C# if you happen to need the C#-specific feature OR there may be a performance benefit to VB if you need one of *its* VB- specific features. Put another way, there is NO correct choice of language - no "fastest" or "best" - it all depends on the code you're writing at the time. Taken one small step further, what you really appear to be arguing for is the use of both ("all") languages so that you can take advantage of each language's strengths at the appropriate time. Interestingly enough, that's exactly what is at the core of the .net architecture running on the CLR; use whatever language you like, interchangeably, even within the same application, so you can benefit from each language's feature set. That holds true for more than just C# and VB though - if you thought that a particular part of your application could be coded more efficiently in Iron Python or J#, you can mix those in as well, and rest comfortably knowing that those classes can be easily used by every other language. I think that sums things up fairly accurately. I don't really agree with your "C# is better because it's like JavaScript" opinion but that's really a different discussion; for me, they're not *enough* the same and so working with languages that are *similar* actually tends to add to the confusion when I reflexively try to use a C# feature in JavaScript or vise-versa. Working in VB on the back end and JavaScript on the front is a clean separation - works better for me anyway. Ken  
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
