[Person5478]

You're confusing webforms with the asp.net framework.

The framework itself was mostly good tech, as long as you didn't use webforms.

Probably the biggest flaw in the framework was not having a way to capture all unhandled exceptions (Application_Error does not catch unhandled asmx exceptions).

... and WebForms.

[ratww]

No, I'm not confusing anything. What I'm talking about is exactly WebForms. Please don't distort my words.

WebForms was good, as long as you didn't try to use it in way it wasn't intended, like doing direct DOM manipulation on top of the UpdatePanel, trying to access private state, refusing to use components or not using separation of concerns. Those are the same things that would also make React apps shitty, but the reason React works is because in React we just don't do it.

WebForms was good, but it needed the same amount of good engineering that a modern React app needs to be good, period. Unfortunately lots of programmers using it back in the day didn't have this knowledge because of lack of good documentation and good practices.

[Person5478]

You said the following:

> it had much better benchmarks than interpreted languages at the time

That seems an odd statement for someone not confusing WebForms with the tech stack.

You can build applications in asp.net framework without the use of WebForms (and you could do so before MVC existed). THAT tech stack was pretty reasonable. It was WebForms specifically that was the problem.

[ratww]

But it did have better benchmarks. Whether it was the merit of the language, interpreter, rest of the stack or anything else is immaterial. I'm just demonstrating that it didn't have performance problems. The reason I preemptively mentioned performance not being an issue is because you are not putting forth any arguments for why you dislike it.

While we're here, cherry-picking one sentence of a post and putting it out of context to try to invalidate all my other opinions is not arguing in good faith. You seem to be trying to prove that I'm "ignorant" or something, but you're the only one displaying any ignorance here, since you're not putting forth any argument, but rather just parroting that something is crap and trying to "win an argument" using fallacies. There is nothing to be learned from your posts at all, no different perspective, no justification of your opinion, no insights into why you dislike it. You're just doubling down on a preconception that you have no justification for.

[Person5478]

I made myself clear in my initial response:

> Webforms was their attempt to bring the VB6 workflow onto the web and it was a terrible idea specifically because the web is not desktop.

As for performance, viewstate was a huge performance issue. That's a large part about what I meant when I said they tried to bring the VB6 workflow onto the web. In order to get there, they had to create the viewstate mechanisms, which created a different set of problems.

They wanted developers to be able to dragNdrop and then double click and write a small bit of code to do a thing, just like in VB6. Only, in order to actually get that to work, they had to come up with things that were actively harmful in a website (and it got worse when they tried to shoehorn ajax into it).

> There is nothing to be learned from your posts at all, no different perspective, no justification of your opinion, no insights into why you dislike it. You're just doubling down on a preconception that you have no justification for.

this is just an HN dog whistle. You could have asked.