 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / C# / October 2007Windows app or ASP.NET ?
I am not sure which way to go: Want to learn C# but C# is implemented both in Windows desktop application and ASP.NET. I am not familiar with web programming, should I start with Windows app or ASP .NET? >I am not sure which way to go: > Want to learn C# but C# is implemented both in Windows desktop application > and ASP.NET. I am not familiar with web programming, should I start with > Windows app or ASP .NET? Why not both? - Michael Starberg I would love to but I need to get started from choosing one of them first anyway. > >I am not sure which way to go: > > Want to learn C# but C# is implemented both in Windows desktop application [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > - Michael Starberg >I would love to but I need to get started from choosing one of them first > anyway. First you need to learn to not top-post, if your message is not final. But I'd start in the middle if I where you, building a simple webservice, and have a small website and a winapp work with that. Why just a master-detail using the Northwnd database. Some Databinding, GUI-gridding. And maybe some Validation. Another thing you could do is to do a really slow Tetris, in a console application. Using Console.Read() you could redraw the 'game-area' for each move, and spend time having fun with OO. maybe IBrick knows when it hits IWall. Or maybe IGame knows when a brick hits a wall. Maybe the singleton Floor could raise an event when it observes that a straight line has been done.. Lousy design, true, but it will get you going... - Michael Starberg >>I would love to but I need to get started from choosing one of them first >> anyway. > > First you need to learn to not top-post, if your message is not final. Top-posting has come into wide use for a good reason. I challenge the anti-top-posting crowd to enumerate the advantages of both bottom- and top-posting. I'm afraid that for many people nowadays, telling others not to top-post is merely a way of claiming status. > But I'd start in the middle if I where you, > building a simple webservice, and have a small website and a winapp work [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Lousy design, true, but it will get you going... Are those serious proposals? You seem to be trying to construct unusually difficult things for a first project. I generally tell beginners to build a simple interactive Windows app with some buttons and textboxes; when the button is pressed, have it read the textboxes, do a calculation, and report the result in another textbox. From there, it's a simple step to games, graphical display of data, etc. >>>I would love to but I need to get started from choosing one of them first >>> anyway. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > top-posting. I'm afraid that for many people nowadays, telling others > not to top-post is merely a way of claiming status. A: Because it ruines the flow of conversation. Q: Why is top-posting bad? That said, I often top-post. But then I also clean-up and only leave relevant posts below. I think it is fair to correct someone, while Alan surely ment no harm. Also, I think you you are semi-correct on the 'claiming status' thingy. It is not easy to join a new 'cluster' of friends in any situation. Doesn't matter if it a rock-festival, a coktail-party or especially, a usenet-cannel. If I seems like a bigot to you, then I semi-apologize for that >> Lousy design, true, but it will get you going... > > Are those serious proposals? You seem to be trying to construct unusually > difficult things for a first project. Yes, indeed. I am trying to get the basics of OO across And this is not doing tetris from scratch in pure c. If you have read my post, you'd see I asked questions. Maybe Alan will start with learning how to get just one brick on a window. Maybe interfaces will make him interested. Maybe he needs simple OO theory. > I generally tell beginners to build a simple interactive Windows app with > some buttons and textboxes; when the button is pressed, have it read the > textboxes, do a calculation, and report the result in another textbox. > From there, it's a simple step to games, graphical display of data, etc. Yep yep. That would be a good start. But by doing that, what have your pupil really learned? Except using a mouse and keyboard? I prefer to throw my pupils in the water and tell them this would be a good time to learn how to swim. =) Alan: Note that we are talking generally here, noone is getting wet by force. - Michael Starberg >> I generally tell beginners to build a simple interactive Windows app with >> some buttons and textboxes; when the button is pressed, have it read the >> textboxes, do a calculation, and report the result in another textbox. >> From there, it's a simple step to games, graphical display of data, etc. > Yep yep. > That would be a good start. > But by doing that, what have your pupil really learned? > Except using a mouse and keyboard? Obviously, they haven't learned much OOP yet. But they also aren't lost. They have a foundation. > I prefer to throw my pupils in the water > and tell them this would be a good time > to learn how to swim. =) How many of them drown? One of my goals (and I've been teaching for 27 years) is for everyone to succeed to the best of his/her ability -- for nobody to get lost unnecessarily. I figure they're *all* paying tuition. > Obviously, they haven't learned much OOP yet. But they also aren't lost. > They have a foundation. oki. >> I prefer to throw my pupils in the water >> and tell them this would be a good time >> to learn how to swim. =) > > How many of them drown? None yet.. that I know of. I don't count my 'pupils', so I don't know. *s* > One of my goals (and I've been teaching for 27 years) is for everyone to > succeed to the best of his/her ability -- for nobody to get lost > unnecessarily. I figure they're *all* paying tuition. Sure, but someone who knows what usenet is, or know how to use google-groups, probably don't need a teacher, but a mentor. I think we can both help as in this battle of egos, we kinda forgot someone, Where is Alan? *s* - Michael Starberg >>> I would love to but I need to get started from choosing one of them first >>> anyway. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > top-posting. I'm afraid that for many people nowadays, telling others not > to top-post is merely a way of claiming status. This should really be a separate thread... What is the "good reason" top-posting is becoming more common? The cons to top-posting, as far as I'm concerned: - Counterintuitive flow to conversation by convention (at least in predominantly English speaking groups). - In point-based analysis/response it fails to address or indicate which points it relates to. The primary con (really the only one that strikes me) with bottom-posting is that if you're thoroughly familiar with the conversation at hand, sifting through a person's quotes is nuisance. However, in branching discussions such as Usenet this is handy since you could jump from one branch in the discussion tree to another. To summarize: - Top-posting goes against every reading convention in the English-speaking world. Print is designed to be read left to right, top to bottom. Forum software is always designed to show you the most recent posts at the bottom (by default, anyway). Heck, you even write left to right, top to bottom. - Bottom-posting does none of these things, and suits Usenet very well. As for it being a "claim to status" that probably depends on the individual posting more than the concept itself, though how you comport yourself in a verbal fashion tends to indicate your status, so I imagine to a degree that does apply to written material. Either way, if people find top-posting confusing, and they say not to do it because it is a barrier to communication then you probably ought to heed their suggestions. Especially here in a newsgroup where people are frequently asking for help. Chris. > This should really be a separate thread... > > What is the "good reason" top-posting is becoming more common? I just replied in the original thread; see that. Briefly: A top-posted reply is quicker to read because the reply is visible without scrolling down. You normally do not need to scroll down to see the old material because you are using a threaded newsreader and have already seen the prior messages, in order. But if you do need it, it's there. > The cons to top-posting, as far as I'm concerned: > - Counterintuitive flow to conversation by convention (at least in > predominantly English speaking groups). Unless you have already read the prior messages in the thread. > - In point-based analysis/response it fails to address or indicate which > points it relates to. True, and I don't top-post in that situation. Instead I do what I'm doing now. > The primary con (really the only one that strikes me) with bottom-posting > is that if you're thoroughly familiar with the conversation at hand, > sifting through a person's quotes is nuisance. Exactly. That can add up to thousands of down-arrow presses during a short session. > To summarize: > - Top-posting goes against every reading convention in the > English-speaking world. Print is designed to be read left to right, top to > bottom. Messages with top-posted replies aren't intended to be read through. The assumption is that normally, the latest reply is the only part you need to see. > - Bottom-posting does none of these things, and suits Usenet very well. When Usenet ran on DECwriters or ADM-3A's, and mail took 2 days to appear on a server, yes. In those days you needed every message to really be a complete thread, in order, because you weren't going to be able to see the rest of the thread. > As for it being a "claim to status" that probably depends on the > individual posting more than the concept itself, though how you comport > yourself in a verbal fashion tends to indicate your status, so I imagine > to a degree that does apply to written material. What I suspect is that some invectives against top posting are from young people trying to give the impression they were on the Net back in the Elder Days (when top posting really was unacceptable). (Or that they are superior because they know the rules from the Elder Days.) At age 50, I spend a remarkable amount of time telling people half my age (or less) to move into modern times. I did not expect to play this role, but the world of computers is *full* of 1980s nostalgia, and is, in my opinion, hobbled by it. > Either way, if people find top-posting confusing, and they say not to do > it because it is a barrier to communication then you probably ought to > heed their suggestions. Especially here in a newsgroup where people are > frequently asking for help. A large number of people are reading, and they don't all have the same preference. > I just replied in the original thread; see that. Briefly: A top-posted > reply is quicker to read because the reply is visible without scrolling > down. You normally do not need to scroll down to see the old material > because you are using a threaded newsreader and have already seen the prior > messages, in order. But if you do need it, it's there. What you have just described (here and in the other portion of the thread) has absolutely nothing to do with top/bottom posting, but rather more to do with people needing to learn to trim things they are replying to. > Unless you have already read the prior messages in the thread. I did indicate this below, but with one correction: Unless you have *just* read the prior messages in the thread. Due to the nature of usenet, it is possible for a single thread to span many days, thus the entire discussion and items being discussed are not necessarily "fresh" in your mind. >> The primary con (really the only one that strikes me) with bottom-posting >> is that if you're thoroughly familiar with the conversation at hand, >> sifting through a person's quotes is nuisance. > > Exactly. That can add up to thousands of down-arrow presses during a short > session. Page Down exists for this reason. That particular argument is weak, especially when you factor in that I would have to read the bottom portion of a top-posted reply anyways if I wasn't already intimately familiar with what has been said. If I am already familiar with it, I have no trouble picking out the responses from the quoted text, especially since it's been decades since news readers began highlighting or flagging quoted text in some fashion. > Messages with top-posted replies aren't intended to be read through. The > assumption is that normally, the latest reply is the only part you need to > see. Your definition of normally and mine obviously differ, and herein lies the problem: Perhaps you read Usenet groups once or twice throughout the day, and can digest large portions of threads. For me, the opposite is true -- I don't spend a lot of time reading threads, but rather I spend a bit of time here and there, many times per day (at home and at work). >> - Bottom-posting does none of these things, and suits Usenet very well. > > When Usenet ran on DECwriters or ADM-3A's, and mail took 2 days to appear on > a server, yes. In those days you needed every message to really be a > complete thread, in order, because you weren't going to be able to see the > rest of the thread. This is not necessarily the case though. There were threaded news readers back before we had Windows. >> Either way, if people find top-posting confusing, and they say not to do >> it because it is a barrier to communication then you probably ought to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A large number of people are reading, and they don't all have the same > preference. I'm not sure what you believe this has to do with my point. What is written here is a complete given. It is also irrelevant to what I said, since I was talking about a situation where someone actually asked. Chris. >> Messages with top-posted replies aren't intended to be read through. The >> assumption is that normally, the latest reply is the only part you need [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I don't spend a lot of time reading threads, but rather I spend a bit of > time here and there, many times per day (at home and at work). Exactly -- that is why the pro-top-posting and anti-top-posting crowds are deadlocked. Michael, This is not a Linux newsgroup. Topposting is the standard in Outlook Express (Now Windows Mail) as most Microsoft Windows users use for newsgroups. Bottom posting is in my idea from the previous millenium. Cor Well said, Cor! Top posting is indeed the standard in the world of threaded newsreaders and very fast news delivery. We no longer need for each message to contain the whole thread, quoted in order; we can see the thread already. Yet it is handy to have the old material available in the message just in case it didn't arrive through normal channels. Hence -- top posting, to see the new stuff immediately with the option of scrolling down to see the old stuff when you need to. I definitely don't believe computers were perfect in 1980 or that old traditions should be preserved forever. I *was* using computers in 1980. Even 1975 (Urbana PLATO) and even 1973 (CDC 6400). :) > Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cor Oki. I'll stand down. What I was trying to say is that top-posting encourages people not > Well said, Cor! Top posting is indeed the standard in the world of > threaded newsreaders and very fast news delivery. .. to prune below posts. > I definitely don't believe computers were perfect in 1980 or that old > traditions should be preserved forever. I *was* using computers in 1980. > Even 1975 (Urbana PLATO) and even 1973 (CDC 6400). :) Please stop giving us hardware-pr0n. I'm drooling. =) - Michael Starberg Start with Windows application programming. I think trying to do both at once would be confusing. Going with a Windows desktop application would be *far* simpler than going with an ASP.NET Web application. With a Windows desktop application, all you have to deal with is Visual Studio. Everything you need for your UI is right there. You design, write code, compile and off you go, possibly with a few 3rd party controls where necessary. With an ASP.NET Web application, you would need to learn [at least something about] each of the following: 1. Web server (IIS) and the role it plays in a Web application... including Virtual directories, application pools, DNS to even get to the correct site on the server, possibly HTTP Headers, etc. 2. HTML (only an idiot would think you can rely only on Visual Studio, FrontPage, or DreamWeaver to write all of your HTML for you. That's just naive. You will need or want to be able to write HTML by hand.). 3. JavaScript (or ECMA Script, and if you're on the fringes, VBScript). 4. The role of HTTP and it's simple request/response model according to which Web applications communicate. 5. State. You'd have to think carefully about where different variables live throughout your application - much more carefully than you would with a desktop application. In an ASP.NET Web application you have (1) application state, (2) session state, and (3) page state ("ViewState" in ASP.NET). 6. Graphics. In order to have a reasonably attractive Web page, you'll need graphics (.gif or .jpg files) to be of a particular size and for several such graphics to work well together to make the page look reasonably good. Odds are that you'd need to learn FireWorks or PhotoShop or some such similar graphics manipulation app in order to tweak grahics files to your liking or requirements. 7. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for making the pages look good uniformly without using the depracated HTML tags like <Font> etc. 8. Client-side vs Server-side events and code (including the ASP.NET code-behind model). 9. Browser differences... they all have quirks and differences in how they interpret the HTML standards. I could go on. You should get the idea though... to do a truly useful ASP.NET Web application is a significantly more costly endeavor in all respects... from setting the thing up to creating an attractive UI to writing code. -HTH -S >I am not sure which way to go: > Want to learn C# but C# is implemented both in Windows desktop application > and ASP.NET. I am not familiar with web programming, should I start with > Windows app or ASP .NET? I can't skip this one Smithers. > 1. Web server (IIS) and the role it plays in a Web application... > including Virtual directories, application pools, DNS to even get to the > correct site on the server, possibly HTTP Headers, etc. Or just press F5 in VS2005. But I'd say the above is good to know. > 2. HTML (only an idiot would think you can rely only on Visual Studio, > FrontPage, or DreamWeaver to write all of your HTML for you. That's just > naive. You will need or want to be able to write HTML by hand.). <q> The BLINK tag in HTML was a joke, okay? If we thought it would actually be used, we wouldn't have written it! (Mark Andreessen) <q/> The mystery of html is not that that hard anymore. With proper usage of <div> and .css and intellisense it is not so difficult. Good to know. > 3. JavaScript (or ECMA Script, and if you're on the fringes, VBScript). With .NET 3.0 and WPF and XAML, not much JavaScript is needed. But good to know. > 4. The role of HTTP and it's simple request/response model according to > which Web applications communicate. If this is hard to grasp for a programmer, even a beginner, Tjeesus. Let go of the keyboard and call a doctor. Me Tarzan, You Jane. I throw my balls to you, you throw it back. Obvious to know > 5. State. You'd have to think carefully about where different variables > live throughout your application - much more carefully than you would with > a desktop application. In an ASP.NET Web application you have (1) > application state, (2) session state, and (3) page state ("ViewState" in > ASP.NET). Which is a great open door to learn about threading. Good to know. > 6. Graphics. In order to have a reasonably attractive Web page, you'll > need graphics (.gif or .jpg files) to be of a particular size and for > several such graphics to work well together to make the page look > reasonably good. Odds are that you'd need to learn FireWorks or PhotoShop > or some such similar graphics manipulation app in order to tweak grahics > files to your liking or requirements. Odds are that one needs not. Nice try. You can't 'learn' to make things look good. Are you asking a coder to paint? In my world, we use AD and usability experts for that. > 7. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for making the pages look good uniformly > without using the depracated HTML tags like <Font> etc. With VS 2008 this is really easy, as you get intellisence all the way. And a nifty designer. Just my using a mouse, even I can do .css as a pro, almost *s* > 8. Client-side vs Server-side events and code (including the ASP.NET > code-behind model). This sometimes confuses me. What to do in the constructor, Page_Init, Page_Load and for master-pages, Page_PreInit. Good to know > 9. Browser differences... they all have quirks and differences in how they > interpret the HTML standards. Oh, html-standards are so prio 1 when learning C# Now you are just grasping for air. > I could go on. I bet you could =) > You should get the idea though... to do a truly useful ASP.NET Web > application is a significantly more costly endeavor in all respects... > from setting the thing up to creating an attractive UI to writing code. Have you played around with the ajax-support in .NET 3.0? Because most stuff you are talking about 'feels' really 1.1 and maybe even ASP3.0 and 2001. Mr. Burns - Michael Starberg >I can't skip this one Smithers. Maybe you should have. Nothing you wrote changes the reality that Web applications are more complicated than Windows applications - which is what my point was. >> 1. Web server (IIS) and the role it plays in a Web application... >> including Virtual directories, application pools, DNS to even get to the >> correct site on the server, possibly HTTP Headers, etc. > > Or just press F5 in VS2005. > But I'd say the above is good to know. It's more than "good to know" - it's an required piece of the puzzle. Even VS2005 needs a Web server... yup provides one of its own, but why would you imply that it's really not important and just "good to know". A Web server is a *required* piece of the puzzle - regardless of where it comes from. It's also something that's not requried in Windows Forms apps - which is the point here. >> 2. HTML (only an idiot would think you can rely only on Visual Studio, >> FrontPage, or DreamWeaver to write all of your HTML for you. That's just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > difficult. > Good to know. Here you go with "good to know" again. HTML is *critically important* to Web apps - you can't have a Web page without HTML. "The mystery of html is not that hard anymore" -- What's that supposed to mean? HTML has basically remained largely unchanged since 1999 or so. Some tags have been depracated - but that's pretty much it. Your statement is nonsensical - "not hard anymore" - implies that html has somehow changed. Even if the tools have become better, anyone who has done any non trivial Web app and page development understands the importance of being able to tweak HTML manually or otherwise understand it. "With proper usage" -- now you are supporting my point. How is anyone supposed to know what "proper usage" is if they haven't learned what HTML is and how it works - VS, Dreamweaver, FrontPage notwithstanding. It's yet another thing to be learned for Web app development that is not there for Windows Forms apps. >> 3. JavaScript (or ECMA Script, and if you're on the fringes, VBScript). > > With .NET 3.0 and WPF and XAML, not much JavaScript is needed. > But good to know. This statement makes it appear that JavaScript is somehow optional - and just "good to know". That's simply false. Postbacks happen via client-side JavaScript. .NET 3.0, WPF, and XAML do not replace JavaScript in any way. >> 4. The role of HTTP and it's simple request/response model according to >> which Web applications communicate. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Obvious to know No, it isn't obvious. Even if it is not a difficult concept (which it likely isn't for most people), it must be accounted for in Web apps. It is yet another thing to know for Web apps but not for Windows forms apps, which is what the point here is. >> 5. State. You'd have to think carefully about where different variables >> live throughout your application - much more carefully than you would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which is a great open door to learn about threading. > Good to know. So there you go again supporting my point --- yet another thing to learn with Web apps that one doesn't have to deal with in Windows Forms apps. Threading and state are not in any way directly related or dependent on each other... not sure where you came up with that... but let's not wander off topic. >> 6. Graphics. In order to have a reasonably attractive Web page, you'll >> need graphics (.gif or .jpg files) to be of a particular size and for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Odds are that one needs not. > Nice try. "Odds are..." + "Nice try" ??? These statements make it pretty clear that you have likely never developed an attractive Web page. They *need* graphics in order to look good. (by "look good" I mean anything other than "amatuerish"). Plus, CSS can take you only so far (i.e., no rounded borders, for example). > You can't 'learn' to make things look good. Yes, you can. > Are you asking a coder to paint? Yes. The days of having coders who do only one thing are very much gone; although maybe not in your world. In any case it's still another thing that must be accounted for with Web apps that aren't required by Windows Forms apps - which can look pretty good without bringing custom graphics into the game. So even if we don't ask our coder to paint, the painting still needs to be done if the page is going to look good. So you still haven't written *anything* to support the ridiculous idea that Web apps are somehow on par with Windows Forms apps in terms of difficulty. > In my world, we use AD and usability experts for that. Wow! That doesn't take away from the fact that the work still needs to be done. What is the OP supposed to take away from this statement of yours... that he should have a staff of AD and usability experts in order to get his Web apps to look good? >> 7. Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for making the pages look good uniformly >> without using the depracated HTML tags like <Font> etc. > > With VS 2008 this is really easy, as you get intellisence all the way. > And a nifty designer. Just my using a mouse, > even I can do .css as a pro, almost *s* Intellisense cannot think for you. Your cavalier attitude suggests that one doesn't need to really understand what's going on, as VS and intellisense will keep you on the straight and narrow. What do you do when you don't like what VS does for you? If you don't understand the HTML or CSS that VS creates for you, then you're screwed until you go up the learning curve. >> 8. Client-side vs Server-side events and code (including the ASP.NET >> code-behind model). > > This sometimes confuses me. I'll let that go (dang it!) :-) > What to do in the constructor, > Page_Init, Page_Load and for master-pages, > Page_PreInit. > > Good to know None of what you wrote there has anything to do with "client-side vs. serverj-side events" -- all those events you listed are server-side events. They are far more than "good to know" - they are *required* knowledge, and an understanding of the HTTP request pipeline is helpful for really understanding when one might want to use these. ... yet another thing not there to be dealt with in Windows Forms apps >> 9. Browser differences... they all have quirks and differences in how >> they interpret the HTML standards. > > Oh, html-standards are so prio 1 when learning C# > Now you are just grasping for air. It is simply irresponsible to state that HTML standards are unimportant. While they may have little or nothing to do with C# itself, HTML (and therefore the HTML standards) are critically important for the development of a sound and functional ASP.NET Web application. >> I could go on. > > I bet you could =) Did I mention the HTTP Request Pipeline? >> You should get the idea though... to do a truly useful ASP.NET Web >> application is a significantly more costly endeavor in all respects... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Because most stuff you are talking about 'feels' really 1.1 > and maybe even ASP3.0 and 2001. Everything I listed is all about the fundamentals - which didn't change with .NET 3.0, AJAX, etc. You are apparently unclear on the fact that AJAX is really not new - in terms of the fundamentals - it still relies on HTTP, JavaScript, and HTML. It is irresponsible to provide a newcomer with the mistaken impression that the fundamentals have somehow been changed or depracated with the coming of .NET 3.0, AJAX, and the sort. The fundamentals are still there, and are as important as ever. -S -S > >I can't skip this one Smithers. > > Maybe you should have. Nothing you wrote changes the reality that Web > applications are more complicated than Windows applications - which is > what my point was. So your point came in 9 enumerated bullets, with details why something is harder than something else. Pretty blunt point you made. What are you gonna stab with next? A frisbee? Or are your general suggestion that we should all go back to VBScript, as it is much easier to learn? Bah. You lost me Smithers. - Michael Starberg <snip> > So your point came in 9 enumerated bullets, > with details why something is harder than something else. Yes - wasn't that nice of me? Instead of just making a vague and wild claim that "Web apps are harder" - I concisely listed specifically how or why Web apps are more complex. This was done to help the OP to make a rational decision based on facts. I didn't do more than 9 because I figured 9 would drive the point home that it's not just a few differences... > Pretty blunt point you made. > What are you gonna stab with next? > A frisbee? This has nothing to do with being blunt. It has everything to do with (1) backing up a point and (2) doing it briefly - while not being so brief as to lose the point. > Or are your general suggestion > that we should all go back to VBScript, > as it is much easier to learn? In none of my posts in this thread did I make any recommendation to learn VBScript. In fact, my only reference to it was somewhat derogatory (... or, if you are on the fringes, VBScript) - clearly implying that VBScript is a less favorable alternative to JavaScript or ECMA Script. What I did was point out specifically how Web applications require mastery of more concepts and/or "components" than Windows Forms applications. In doing that, I in no way questioned the merits of Web applications in general. This was all to inform the OP of the reasoning behind the recommendation for him to go with Windows Forms apps... the implication being that he could focus more time on learning C# -which was HIS stated objective. Going with a Web application would require him to learn things beyond C# (his intended focus) additional things like HTML, CSS, and all those other Web application-specific concepts I listed. > Bah. You lost me Smithers. What a convenient time to get lost. :-) -S >> 9. Browser differences... they all have quirks and differences in how they >> interpret the HTML standards. > > Oh, html-standards are so prio 1 when learning C# > Now you are just grasping for air. This is quite possibly the most nonsensical and (apologies to the rest of the group) idiotic criticism leveled at another poster I have seen written in this group to date. It tells me rather clearly that you have very little, if any, experience in developing enterprise-level web applications. Chris. >>> 9. Browser differences... they all have quirks and differences in how >>> they interpret the HTML standards. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chris. If you are 'developing enterprise-level web applications', I say html standards are important. Actually, it is a job. html/css is not only a job, it's an art. But if you just want to learn C# a la web, html is not prio 1. I hope you find that more sensical. - Michael Starberg > I am not sure which way to go: > Want to learn C# but C# is implemented both in Windows desktop application > and ASP.NET. I am not familiar with web programming, should I start with > Windows app or ASP .NET? As Smithers mentioned, ASP.NET has a few extra complications to it. Start simple with a WinForms app. Chris. Alan, Take the one that gives you the most fun. Be aware that you need for ASP.Net an open ASP.Net server, those are not always provided, you can use your own computer as it is a professional version, however then your computer is almost wide open if you have not very strong firewall hard- or software. Beside that you need then a continuous connection to internet. I live in Holland where that is common for most people, I assume that this is not standard in Australia. Cor Thank you very much the advices you all guys have given. First of all, some threads discussed about my top-post, yes, this is my habit as a result of my using Outlook Express as newsreader, that's the default. I only use bottom-post when there are more than 1 previous material to refer. I forgot to mention in my original message, I have been programming C# using VS 2005 for 6 months, but really have not much knowledge about the CSS, session, web security (although several years ago I worked with web project using Javascript and HTML). I agree I should start with Windows application but not sure WHEN I should start learning ASP .NET? Can I just buy a book like Beginning ASP.NET with C# that go forward without through understanding of Javascript, CSS, HTMl, XHTML, sessions, Ajax.....etc. > Alan, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Holland where that is common for most people, I assume that this is not > standard in Australia. Then I apologize for making such a thing of it. > I forgot to mention in my original message, I have been programming C# > using > VS 2005 for 6 months, but really have not much knowledge about the CSS, > session, web security (although several years ago I worked with web > project > using Javascript and HTML). <div> and em, is quite different from <table> and cleardots. *s* > I agree I should start with Windows application but not sure WHEN I should > start learning ASP .NET? Why not both at the same time. Code the same app in both! > Can I just buy a book like Beginning ASP.NET with C# that go forward > without > through understanding of Javascript, CSS, HTMl, XHTML, sessions, > Ajax.....etc. If you ever find such a book, let me know =) >> Alan, - Michael Starberg RE: >> Why not both at the same time. >> Code the same app in both! Note that the above is terrible advice because Web applications are *very* different types of applications than Windows Forms applications. My posts elsewhere tell you specifically why and how. There are so many things to know that make an ASP.NET Web application, that it would be smart to budget time for each of those things. Books by Dino Esposito would be helpful. Additonally, you might want to find an ASP.NET "Reference Application". Reference applications are completely operational programs intended for didactic purposes. They typically come with excellent documentation, full source code that his heavily commented, etc. These let you see how it all hangs together. DOFActory (http://www.dofactory.com/Default.aspx) offers a reference app - but you have to buy their suite (highly recommended regardless). Vertigo Software did a few free ASP.NET Web apps for Microsoft. Not sure where to find those now, but they should be readily available on the Internet. -HTH -S Smithers, As you point to the thread where I gave an advice, what is wrong with my advice that when you start with ASPNET to be sure that you can give access to your pages? Can you do it without Internet (when it is about learning Internet is not the question, and only creating pages for yourself is booring). Cor Cor, I didn't respond to your post. I didn't address your advice. I was responding to Alan T. I was responding to the advice provided by Michael A Starberg (to learn both simultaneously). None of that had anything to do with you or your post. -S > Smithers, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cor > Cor, > > I didn't respond to your post. If you post to a usenet group, you implicity did. > I didn't address your advice. If you post to a usenet group, you'll get it anyway. > I was responding to Alan T. > > I was responding to the advice provided by Michael A Starberg (to learn > both simultaneously). By telling me, my advice suck. That sure will help Alan. :) > None of that had anything to do with you or your post. > > -S If you can't take a comment, why post? - Michael Starberg > Thank you very much the advices you all guys have given. > First of all, some threads discussed about my top-post, yes, this is my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I agree I should start with Windows application but not sure WHEN I should > start learning ASP .NET? Why not do them both on the fly? > Can I just buy a book like Beginning ASP.NET with C# that go forward > without > through understanding of Javascript, CSS, HTMl, XHTML, sessions, > Ajax.....etc. I recommend the MS MCTS training kit books for Web and Windows desktop development. Forget that the books are for certification. The books will give you a solid foundation by going through the basics. Basically, the books give you the basics. I also recommend that you look at the Design Patterns Bootcamp: Model View Patterns Show with code examples. Pictures and presentations and code by Polymorphicpodcast can help you out of the gate as well. You can also look at some of the other shows as too. http://www.polymorphicpodcast.com/ Hi, I am just thinking I am confused. Although I have been programmin for several years in Delphi, however, the advices given in this thread made me thinking of we need to prepare ourselves not only ASP.NET, but also Windows app. For ASP.NET, you need to know CSS, HTML (DHTML, XHTMl,...), XML, sessions, cookies, Javascripts...etc. Now if I start Windows app first, some may say you need to understand OOP. On the top of that, you need to know API, Windows messaging, database,...etc. So it seems you need to study the database, API... before knowing C#. Remember the days when I was working as trainee programming using Delphi grabbed the book talking about Delphi, it also talked about OOP, Windows controls (editbox, listbox, grid), database, API...etc. So just wonder if I start the same way in learning ASP.NET in C#? RE: > Now if I start Windows app first, some may say you need to understand OOP. > On the top of that, you need to know API, Windows messaging, > database,...etc. So it seems you need to study the database, API... before > knowing C#. OOP - you can "get away" without really know it. I"ve seen lots of VB6ers writing "glorified scripts" in C#. Separately, OOP is relevant to all kinds of applications. You seem to think that OOP is relevant to Windows apps and not to ASP.NET apps. That's simply incorrect. API - you don't need to know that for a Windows forms app. Whatever benefit might be gained from knowing how to call the windows API from a desktop app could just as easily be realized or relevant to an ASP.NET app. Again, you seem to think that API stuff is not relevant to ASP.NET - that's also not true. Windows messaging (same as above)... Database... same as above. It's hard to imagine a non trivial ASP.NET Web site that doesn't make use of some database. If we revisit your original inquiry - you say you want to learn C#. What most of the rational feedback you have received is telling you is more or less: "learn Windows Forms app - because you'll be able to more easily focus on the language itself - without also having to deal with CSS, HTML, JavaScript, ViewState, etc. Those things are *required* with an ASP.NET app, whereas the other stuff you listed (OOP, API, etc) is equally relevant to both Windows and Web apps. -HTH S > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > So just wonder if I start the same way in learning ASP.NET in C#? > Hi, > > I am just thinking I am confused. Don't be. If you already know Delphi, You will find .NET easy to learn. Also, WinForms is a rip-off the Borland VCL. This is not a blunt statement, but the truth. Microsoft licenced most of Borlands patents, so they could do a 'improvement' of the VCL. This is why I suggest you should learn ASP.NET aswell, because you don't need to learn so much about html and stuff, just drag and drop components on a WebForm. And in aspnet, if you add a singleton class to your project, - Welcome to the world of threading! My whole point was that you should do the same task, in different way. So up the ante - Do a tic-tac-toe in WinForms, WebForms, Java and C++ That will teach you programming, and what is just perks and flaws in each world. Or, just do it in WinForms, but in your head, learn how it would look like in all 'em languages. As for starters, maybe you should do a simple program using WinForm and Delpihi and compare the two. - Michael Starberg Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.