ASP.NET MVC vs. Webforms: Replacing WebForms Controls

Question

I have read several other posts here, so i get the idea on the pro vs. cons, especially having full control over the rendered html code etc. (in MVC).

My question is regarding the UI controls: In MVC, i will have to write all UI controls myself (or the html equivalent). Now is that not going to be very difficult? The reason why these 3rd party vendors for asp.net are there is just because of the fact that it is difficult to write UI controls for ASP.NET all by ourselves, and be able to target to all web browsers, and also that we are better off concentrating our time on the business logic rather than spending the whole lot of time writing the UI controls HTML code ourselves.

I understand that this feature gets us the full control over the final html, but is it not counter-productive to do this UI bit ourselves. If it was so easy to write them ourselves, how come these 3-rd party vendors are all living now. We could have done this all by ourselves all these years of WebForms days.

I am sure i am missing something here or being a little stupid, but please enlighten me as to what i am missing in specific regard to the UI bit being written by ourselves.

Just because i get full control over the program by writing in IL code, do we go and do that? We still use C# and things like that - So that theory of "having full control over html" - i am not bought into that idea.

Please help in getting my head around this UI bit. Other things i understand, about the separation of concern, TDD based development possible with MVC etc. But why would i go around writing the UI controls all by myself - it is a bit a work isn't it?

Answer 1

Here's a new rant on the subject http://www.charliedigital.com/PermaLink,guid,6dcb0333-9d70-40c7-975b-0ff4011c4661.aspx

Answer 2

Problem is, ASP.NET MVC is much younger product than ASP.NET. For many years 3rd party companies have been developing TONS of reusable components, and I believe that it is only a matter of time before comparable set of controls will be available for ASP.NET MVC.

If you really need very rich GUI with 3rd party controls, and you can't rewrite them in acceptable time - stick with asp.net. Altough in my opinion, MVC gives you tons of power it wouldn't be wise to spend much more time rewriting controls than you can save. If you can live without controls, and like MVC concepts - use MVC, and you'll most certainly see 3rd party solutions as soon as they'll there is growing market (maybe thay've already noticed that, I don't know) for mvc extensions.

Answer 3

I believe that the UI and the user experience are vital to the success of a web app. Making the page intuitive and easy to use, minimizing the amount of navigation the user has to do to get the job done, and providing effective feedback and interactivity can make all the difference between a site that users want to use and one that they avoid.

If you are trying to attract users on a public website, a pleasing appearance and excellent usability are key to building repeat visits.

If you are writing an intranet app to be used by hundreds or thousands of employees all day long -- as I mostly do -- making the UI efficient and easy to use really means a lot to your users.

So, I wouldn't downplay the importance of the UI. It isn't a nuisance. It's a key part of the user experience. I suggest that a web developer should embrace whatever tools and strategies that will get the job done. That often means coding the UI controls yourself. Or working with a teammate who likes doing that part of the work.

Answer 4

The thing is:

If you want to master in web development you have to master HTML + CSS + Javascript

And with WebForms you have to learn the WebForms way to do it, but with MVC you have the power of .Net with the freedom to generate the HTML + CSS + Javascript you want.

Answer 5

Here is the key thing that I think you are missing. When ASP.NET is no longer the MS way of doing things...you will eventually be forced to move on and do something else. I have programmed in perl, ASP classic, then ColdFusion, then PHP, then ASP.NET web forms, then ASP.NET MVC...the only thing that they all have in common is the underlying database, design patterns, best practices for a given set of technology AND...HTML, JavaScript, CSS, and Photoshop.

No one is asking you to learn MVC. No one is telling you to not use WebForms. However, complaining that you have to write a raw UI is not going to get you very far in this industry. You should be learning something new every day...and it sounds like some time spent on HTML and CSS would be a great place to start your focus!

The biggest problem you have with relying on third party controls is when a client asks you to do something that the third party controls don't cover. If you can't replicate their complexity plus the added feature request on your own you are skirting a possible failure in your professional livelihood! You will need to know how to do it all...eventually!

I generally suggest that you embrace new technologies. You don't have to use them...but you should at least know how. This way you will know what the best tool is for any given project.

Answer 6

I've been wondering - what's an equivalent of 'control' from webforms in asp.net mvc? It's not a partial view for sure. What else it can be? Controller + partial views via partial requests?

Maybe i'm dumb, blind or both, but i haven't seen any 'control' for asp.net mvc. Just a lot of code snippets to accomplish one specific thing or another.

I believe that asp.net mvc is quite unfriendly with rapid development. Only way out of this problem - a lot of open source code (like MvcContrib), tutorials, sample applications & most important - slightly smarter developers.

Answer 7

I recently refactored a very complex website using ASP.NET + handworked javascript to MVC + jQuery. The complexity of the code was reduced by 50%-75% and became much more testable. I replaced all the complex webcontrols I had to write (with a steep learning curve I had to overcome) with very simple HtmlHelper methods.

Don't forget, when you use custom webcontrols, you are given a very static UI by the control developer. With raw HTML, you can take advantage of styles and ui developed by the whole web industry.

Increased simplicity, decreased development time, testability, flexibility in UI... I don't want to go back.

Answer 8

You also have to remember that ASP.NET MVC is just the first release. I don't think there is intrinsically any reason why you couldn't have the equivalent of server controls to enable certain tasks - remember, there are many server controls that don't generate any mark-up (such as the Repeater, PlaceHolder, ListView). These type of controls could be useful in a future MVC setting, I think.

Answer 9

You do not have to replace Webforms controls with something else from MVC. Just mix them - http://www.hanselman.com/blog/PlugInHybridsASPNETWebFormsAndASPMVCAndASPNETDynamicDataSideBySide.aspx

Answer 10

I believe that ASP.net came around when lots of developers were still used to doing desktop applications and just beginning web development. AT that point in time abstracting the details of the web with controls and post backs was a great way to get people started. At that point we weren't trying to perfect the web, we just wanted to get on it!

Now that the web has matured and we've all slowly learned about html, css, javascript and the likes we want to optimize our websites for our own needs and we don't want to depend on ASP.net Forms controls to control the fine details of our websites.

In summary, I think this is about the natural evolution of many developers from the desktop to the web