RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Good article. I would have to say though that this really only addresses those 100% 'dragdrop' programmers. There is nothing that prevents one from using 100% vanilla HTML directly or through the HTML controls ( as opposed to the ASP.NET web controls ). Getting away from styling controls using the designer is a must - do everything that you possibly can using stye sheets - inline styles are a no-no. Although vs2008 has gone a long way in these regard. Also look into the css control adapters to get ASP.NET to generate css friendly table-less html. Test your site during development on multiple browsers and if necessary, remove any problems associated with ASP.NET browser detection by replacing the dragdrop controls with something that does work the way you would like. The number places where this is necessary are actually pretty small - most problems are due to css issues rather than the code generated by ASP.NET. In my experience, doing initial site testing using the latest version of firefox is a good way to get a site looking pretty good in most browsers. Developing with internet explorer as your only test browser is a really bad idea. My last point would be that even with the most standards compliant modern browsers, 100% visual compatibility can be a tough go due to the many ambiguous aspects of the standards. Know when to say that pretty close is close enough. Gerry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony G Sent: December 3, 2007 09:40 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] .net versus VS I did a follow-up to Gerry's answer on my blog: remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com /blog/tech/2007/12/crossbrowserdotnet1.html From: gerry Nothing runs 'ON' FireFox. From: Bill Will .Net code run on FireFox? --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
gerry-u2ug wrote: Getting away from styling controls using the designer is a must Defiantly - Personally I think it is very important that you have a very good understanding of html/xhtml and css if you are going to do asp.net programming, sure you can get away with using asp.net controls and doing very little html but this will bite you in the end. In my experience, doing initial site testing using the latest version of firefox is a good way to get a site looking pretty good in most browsers. Developing with internet explorer as your only test browser is a really bad idea. Absolutely - plus download firebug so you can inspect those errant parts on the page and see exactly what the css hierarchy is that is being used etc. Rgds Symeon. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Thanks Gerry - You'll note at the bottom of the article I referenced a follow-up. I've already written it but didn't want to get side-tracked from main focus of browser-compatibility. As you've indicated it addresses the hazards of drag/drop programming, avoiding tables in favor of CSS, and using alternative control adapters. Regards, T From Gerry Good article. I would have to say though that this really only addresses those 100% 'dragdrop' programmers. Getting away from styling controls using the designer is a must - do everything that you possibly can using stye sheets - inline styles are a no-no. Although vs2008 has gone a long way in these regard. Also look into the css control adapters to get ASP.NET to generate css friendly table-less html. --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Nothing runs 'ON' FireFox. ASP.NET code running on a web server generates HTML that is requested and interpreted by client browsers. Its up to the programmer to ensure that the generated HTML renders properly on any particular client browser just the same as it is with any other type HTML service. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: December 3, 2007 10:24 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] .net versus VS I am glad to learn of Floss, Mono, Cygwin... I need to be on some new spam lists. Will .Net code run on FireFox? --Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Hmmm - strange question perhaps - Firefox is a browser and so will display most any html/xhtml pages and run some clever things like javascript,flash etc. It dows not care what produces those pages i.e. php/asp/asp.net/u2/notepad ... ASP.NET will dynamically produce web pages in html/xhtml that may or may not incorporate javascript and flash etc. So firefox does not run .net but will run the output of most asp.net web server applications. The actual .net code runs in the .net framework which runs on windows/mono etc not in a browser ! Clear ? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: 03 December 2007 15:24 To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] .net versus VS I am glad to learn of Floss, Mono, Cygwin... I need to be on some new spam lists. Will .Net code run on FireFox? --Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
VS.NET 2008, right click on page.aspx - Browse with ... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Leach Sent: December 3, 2007 11:02 AM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] .net versus VS Will .Net code run on FireFox? ASP.NET pages render largely the same on Firefox, but there are layout differences: in particular Firefox doesn't like applying widths to span elements, so ASP.NET labels won't pad out the same. Panels (implemented as fieldset) look different. Also some of the auto-position of elements using css are slightly different on IE6, IE7 and Firefox. So it's always worth testing your results on all three. Incidentally that seems to be something I can't do directly from the VS2008 IDE, unless I'm overlooking an option. There's no 'Run this page in...'. Silverlight works the same on both: but you want to wait for the full 1.1 release. Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brutzman, Bill Sent: 03 December 2007 15:24 To: 'u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org' Subject: RE: [U2] .net versus VS I am glad to learn of Floss, Mono, Cygwin... I need to be on some new spam lists. Will .Net code run on FireFox? --Bill --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Gerry VS.NET 2008, right click on page.aspx - Browse with ... Doh! Thanks - I must be getting old. It's there in the Solution window, but not if you right click on the page in the designer. That just goes straight into the default browser (Firefox, naturally). Brian --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
I did a follow-up to Gerry's answer on my blog: remove.pleaseNebula-RnD.com /blog/tech/2007/12/crossbrowserdotnet1.html From: gerry Nothing runs 'ON' FireFox. From: Bill Will .Net code run on FireFox? --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Oh how little can evoke so much... If I tried to spare bandwidth and summarize that your statement is a word jumble that doesn't make any sense, I would be flamed as being rude. So I'll explicitly refute most inaccuracies that you've introduced and I hope it will settle some of this confusion. As always, sorry for being long-winded. Bill wrote: Microsoft's CLR (Common Language Runtime) makes it impossible to launch a VS app installed on a Unix drive. Thus, I see Microsoft as rather limiting. I could simply counter with the statement that most FLOSS projects built over Linux don't work over Windows, so by your argument *nix is just as limiting. But your statement is non sequitur. U2 doesn't have a Mac port, so does that mean IBM is rather limiting? If you were agreeing with Doug, he didn't say Microsoft is limiting, he said Windows is - perhaps you have just widened the scope. Aside from that, your statement above is mixing apples and oranges concerning the CLR and VS, and your notes about VS [snipped] sort of just proved my point below. Tony G wrote People often confuse .NET with Visual Studio. VS facilitates the use of .NET, but development with .NET does not require VS. There's no such thing as a VS app so your statement is only accurate in that it's impossible to install code anywhere if it doesn't exist. Even assuming you simply meant .NET code in Windows can't invoke functionality from a Unix box, we all know that's inaccurate as well because there are many tools (including my own freeware) which allow a Windows system to invoke functionality from *nix or U2 running on a remote *nix system. They didn't call it .NET for nothing. Changing the subject of this thread to .net versus VS is like saying paint versus canvas: paint/.NET is used in many ways, canvas/VS is one medium where paint is used to create art/software. These things are not subject to comparison, nor are they linked inextricably. To clarify just a bit, .NET is a stack, a framework, just like the Java J(2)EE and LAMP, but it encompasses much more than either of those. So you're not making a point here, you're confusing people by mixing unrelated terms as though it proves a point. The CLR (Common Language Runtime) has been implemented in Mono (FLOSS) which runs over Windows, *nix/BSD, and Mac. If you need code that runs cross-platform, write it in C# with VS or some other editor and compile/run it with Mono wherever you want. While Mono does not fully implement all facets of .NET, it's complete enough where anyone in this forum could use either implementation to achieve pretty much the same end for any platform. And because of initiatives like Silverlight, Microsoft and Novell are working together (go figure) with the Mono developers to ensure even closer agreement between .NET and Mono for cross-platform development. If you don't want to pay for the Visual Studio development environment from Microsoft then you can buy an IDE from someone else, or use freeware. Just like Java has Eclipse and NetBeans and IntlliJ, there are FLOSS and third-party commercial IDE's for .NET. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on development tools, they sell tools that make it easier to use their stack - take um or leave um. The .NET SDK is free and so is the runtime. So while I acknowlege that the free tools are limited compared to the pro versions (common model), I maintain you don't need VS to develop with .NET. Ahem... nuff outta me. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ removethisNebula-RnD.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
Re: [U2] .net versus VS
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony G [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Oh how little can evoke so much... If I tried to spare bandwidth and summarize that your statement is a word jumble that doesn't make any sense, I would be flamed as being rude. So I'll explicitly refute most inaccuracies that you've introduced and I hope it will settle some of this confusion. As always, sorry for being long-winded. Bill wrote: Microsoft's CLR (Common Language Runtime) makes it impossible to launch a VS app installed on a Unix drive. Thus, I see Microsoft as rather limiting. I could simply counter with the statement that most FLOSS projects built over Linux don't work over Windows, so by your argument *nix is just as limiting. Actually, that's pretty untrue ... Just as many (not most) .net projects will run with mono (Yes, I'm quoting you :-), most FLOSS projects built over linux will also run over cygwin. Oh - and gtk and KDE both have windows ports, so most linux gui software will compile native on Windows, too ... So, I'd guess *nix is rather *less* limiting :-) Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Yings, yow graley yin! Suz ae rikt dheu,' said the blue man, taking the thimble. 'What *is* he?' said Magrat. 'They're gnomes,' said Nanny. The man lowered the thimble. 'Pictsies!' Carpe Jugulum, Terry Pratchett 1998 Visit the MaVerick web-site - http://www.maverick-dbms.org Open Source Pick --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Anthony Y wrote: Just as many (not most) .net projects will run with mono (Yes, I'm quoting you :-), most FLOSS projects built over linux will also run over cygwin. Oh please, let's just jump to the trump card and say anything will run anywhere with an emulator like Cygwin underneath, so none of the environments are limiting as long as we have vmWare, Win4Lin, or some other virtualization layer. Does anyone have a real point here about .NET for serious discussion, or has oneupmanship and technical bias against the unknown become an acceptable driving force of this forum? T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Tony: Are we having a bad day? A nice glass of Syrah should improve it. :-) Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony G Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 8:06 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] .net versus VS Anthony Y wrote: Just as many (not most) .net projects will run with mono (Yes, I'm quoting you :-), most FLOSS projects built over linux will also run over cygwin. Oh please, let's just jump to the trump card and say anything will run anywhere with an emulator like Cygwin underneath, so none of the environments are limiting as long as we have vmWare, Win4Lin, or some other virtualization layer. Does anyone have a real point here about .NET for serious discussion, or has oneupmanship and technical bias against the unknown become an acceptable driving force of this forum? T --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
RE: [U2] .net versus VS
Some of us have Unix servers. The last time that I looked (a few years ago) the limitation was networking. That is, a Professional ($800) version of Visual.Studio was needed to do anything over a network such as launching an application from a mapped drive. Microsoft's CLR (Common Language Runtime) makes it impossible to launch a VS app installed on a Unix drive. Thus, I see Microsoft as rather limiting. --Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tony G Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 4:50 PM To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org Subject: RE: [U2] mv.net versus Web DE Doug Averch wrote We looked a mv.net and found the Windows platform very limiting and would force us to use Visual Studio. Charles_Shaffer wrote: Uniobjects is not strictly limited to Visual Studio. People often confuse .NET with Visual Studio. VS facilitates the use of .NET, but development with .NET does not require VS. If you don't want to pay for Visual Studio there are many free editions of VS available for download from Microsoft. These are of course limited in various ways but someone just starting with .NET won't miss the missing functionality and .NET programming with MV should not be affected in the least. I chuckle on the statement that Windows is 'very limiting'. Gosh, I guess that explains why we can't get any software for these stupid things. Tony Gravagno Nebula Research and Development TG@ removethisNebula-RnD.com --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ --- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
