Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Will using ASP.NET MVC confuse developers?

There seem to be a few interesting opinions flying around about Microsoft announcing they will finally add MVC to their ASP.NET offering - only 27 years after MVC was first created :)

David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails, says: "The proposed MVC extensions to ASP.NET bear more than a striking resemblance to the way we implemented things in Rails. That's, of course, flattering to have a giant like Microsoft attempt to copy many of the ideas that we've been championing for years now, but they do appear to be a little late to the party."

Joel Spolsky, author of the popular Joel on Software blog and the man responsible for integrating Visual Basic into Office, adds: "It’s clear that the ASP.NET team is trying to clone some of the popular benefits of Ruby on Rails. I’m disappointed that Microsoft forces you to choose whether your app is MVC or not before you write the first line of code. It’s a very different way of organizing code than traditional ASP.NET, and the way it looks now in the CTP [Community Technology Preview], it’s going to confuse new developers who now have one more decision to make about how to build an ASP.NET site. It does address one of the weaknesses of ASP.NET, which was how to organize large sites."

Oh, and you have to upgrade to IIS 7.0 in order to use ASP.NET MVC.


Anonymous said...

You do not need IIS 7.0 to run ASP.NET MVC. In fact, you don't need IIS at all, but it runs fine on 6.0.

Robert Maldon said...

Thanks for the info. I guess Joel (or eweek?) was wrong about requiring IIS 7.

Out of curiosity how can you use ASP.NET MVC without using IIS? I'm aware that ASP.NET is really part of .NET, as demonstrated by the thin wrapper Cassini (http://www.asp.net/downloads/archived/cassini/) but I've never seen anybody use Cassini in production.