The last 2 days I had a lovely time upgrading a major project we work on at BrightMix over to Visual Studio 2008. Actually, the code upgrade was totally automated by VS2008 so that was easy. The hard part was getting VS2008 Team Foundation Build Client to play nice with our Team Foundation 2005 Build Server (abbreviated as TFBS from now on).

Oh, the Trials And Tribulations...

The first thing you find out is TFBS can't figure out how to build 2008 solutions. You'll see something like this in your build log file:

Build FAILED.
C:\Builds\TFSNow\TfsNow-PublicWebsite-Continuous\Sources\PublicWebsite.sln(2): Solution file error MSB5014: File format version is not recognized.  MSBuild can only read solution files between versions 7.0 and 9.0, inclusive.

Fortunately, Mitch Denny has a great post detailing out how to fix this issue. Following Mitch's post, I upgraded the build server from .NET 2.0 to 3.5 and replaced the .NET 2.0's MSBuild.exe with a dumby MSBuild.exe that redirects to .NET 3.5's MSbuild.exe. Fun times. For your convience, here's the dumby .NET 3.5 MSBuild executable that I used (note: mine is hardcoded to redirect to C:\WINDOWS\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\MSBuild.exe - you'll have to compile your own if you need it to go someplace else).

Next Problem: Deploying Web Applications

After I got the dumby MSBuild.exe in place, I fired off a test build and another error showed up in the log:

error MSB4019: The imported project "C:\Program Files\MSBuild\Microsoft\VisualStudio\v9.0 \WebApplications\Microsoft.WebApplication.targets" was not found. Confirm that the path in the <Import> declaration is correct, and that the file exists on disk.

The problem is with an <import> declaration in the Web Application Project's .csproj file. Basically, the "Microsoft.WebApplication.targets" file doesn't exist on the build server because it only has TFS 2005 installed.

I ran across a couple of helpful blog posts for this problem: Steve Harmen demonstrates a fix to the Web Application Project's .csproj file that involves adding another <import> declaration and some conditional logic. So, I added that in and, sure enough, the test build was now successful.

Surprise! Another Problem!

However, I quickly discovered that the Web Application Project's files (.aspx, .html, binaries, etc.) were not getting deployed to the test server's drop location. Some further digging revealed that some other people have had this problem, but no one had come up with a solution.

My Final Solution

What I ended up doing to get this working was leaving the <import> declaration in my Web Application Project's .csproj to point at the VS2008 directory (the one with "v9.0" in it). Then, I simply created that directory on the build server, since it didn't exist, and I copied the v8.0 "Microsoft.WebApplication.targets" file into the newly created "v9.0" directory. This probably isn't the best solution for this problem, but it seems to work.

If anyone has feedback on this, please leave a comment!

This is part 3, the last post in my Rails VS ASP.NET series. Please see Post #1 and Post #2 if you missed them.

In my previous post, I mentioned that I have a glimmer of hope for ASP.NET. This post is about the current state of ASP.NET, what it's doing right and, moreover, what direction I want to see it go.

The Alt.Net Movement

A community, dubbed Alt.Net, formed around providing solutions to a number of programming concepts that the .NET framework lacks. Particularly pressing is the lack of an MVC framework for ASP.NET. Fortunately, some smart developers out there cranked out a solution to the MVC problem: Monorail, a replacement for ASP.NET's out-of-the-box Webform architecture. Monorails gained a lot of popularity, but , as a 3rd party product, its adoption has been limited. I mean, most ASP.NET devs out there that I've talked to have never heard of it.

As a side note, I think it's worth pointing out here that if a ASP.NET has disgruntled enough programmers out there to the point where they've band together and created their own framework to fix/extend the current architecture, it seems like a good indicator that something is horribly, terribly wrong.

Most recently, Scott Gu announced Microsoft's solution to ASP.NET's MVC conundrum: the aptly named ASP.NET MVC, which is being bundled into the ASP.NET 3.5 Extensions library.

Yoink! We got MVC Now!

How does this play into Rails? Well, one could claim that Microsoft's implementation of the MVC pattern and associated URL routing structures are freakishly similar to that of Rails. Like really, really similar. It doesn't really bother me that Microsoft is making ASP.NET MVC mimic Rails. In fact, it's a great indicator that Rails is on the right track (pardon the pun). I just wish they'd go a bit further and implement the concept of Rails Partials and also extend the Microsoft Ajax Javascript Extension library to be more like Prototype.

Hmmm... Why Use ASP.NET?

If you've done much Rails development, you'll quickly discover that the majority of Rails developers out there use a Mac as their development platform and TextMate as their preferred IDE. I recently joined this bandwagon, and I will admit that it's a pretty sweet set up. Damn you, Apple, for making your MacBook Pro's so attractive!

Anyway, so one thing that sucks about Rails development, especially if you're just learning, is you don't have access to the all-knowing Intellisense to help you along. The latest versions of Visual Studio, and by that I mean 2005 and up, have some very kick ass, easy-to-use Intellisense that helps out not only with .NET code but with CSS and Javascript. Of course, TextMate has the concept of Bundles, which are very powerful, but basically require memorization of Hotkeys to be useful. There's also the NetBeans IDE for Rails, which has some decent Intellisense, but nothing on par with Visual Studio's.

Another thing .NET has going for it is its immediate availability of "Enterprisey" level things, such as message queuing and transaction scopes. It's also great for working with old Com Objects and the like (*shudder*) This comparison post has more details on the subject.

Another situation in which Rails would be a weak choice: say you need to create a new web app that talks to an old legacy database. The Rails ORM, ActiveRecord, is built around the assumption that your database will be created in parallel with the Rails application and follow a strict set of naming conventions. You're going to run into some major setbacks if you try to use Rails for this scenario. However, with ASP.NET, you can easily use ADO.NET to handle this problem much more quickly and efficiently.

I certainly won't claim to know every situation in which one framework might is better suited than the other. Leave a comment if you can point one out!

Rails Vs. ASP.NET Wrap Up!

I could keep going on this subject, but I'm going to stop myself here. I've talked a lot about the problems I've experienced with ASP.NET and a number of the reasons why I believe Rails is currently a far superior web framework. If I had to slim it down to 3 reasons why Rails is better, they would be:

• Integrated ORM
• Convention over Configuration
• Integrated Javascript Library

If you're currently a hardcore ASP.NET dev, like I used to be, I greatly encourage you to take a look at Rails and play around with it a bit - I guarantee it will be an eye-opening experience. Actually, you might not want to; once you get a taste of Rails, you'll likely not want to go back!

In a day of hardcore deliberating and conjugating, we at BrightMix decided to lease a very cool, very sweet, very retro-awesome office space! You can read more about it on the here.

Interestingly, we originally saw this office space by stumbling across this site, which showcases renovations done by the dudes of the DivvyCollective. These guys put in some serious blood, sweat, and tears to tear up this building's old asbestos-laden tile floor, tear down its crappy drop ceiling, cover up some gross 1970's-doctor's-office paint job, and a bunch of other improvements.

It turns out, despite all that work, that they've decided to split up and go their separate ways. Fortunately for us, we've been in business just long enough to be able to afford to start leasing a space.

Stay tuned to this blog (or the BrightMix blog) for pictures of our move-in and an online tour, of sorts.

If you missed it, check out Part 1 of my Rails VS ASP.NET series.

At first, I didn't understand what that phrase meant. Convention over Configuration? I guess I'm a little dense sometimes. At some point, it finally clicked. Suffice to say, ASP.NET has a whole lot of configuration, but not a lot of convention.

Before I go any further, here are the components I see as being integral to Web 2.0 development.

• An ORM tool
• Unit testing framework
• Ajax library/Interface
• Javascript Extension Framework

Rails has all of the above components integrated into its framework. Each component is very well constructed and integrate seamlessly with each other, making for a very slick, easy, and, most importantly, productive developer experience.

ASP.NET, on the other hand, currently only bolsters the ajax and javascript components. which I have issue with. It's not bundled with an ORM or unit testing framework.

Side Note:
Far too many of the ASP.NET developers I've run into don't know what an ORM tool is or what a unit testing framework does. If you're one of these developers, please, please, please!, For the good of your fellow programmers and your profession, educate yourself on ORM's and Unit Testing technologies, ASAP. No one will laugh at you, I promise. We all used to be "that guy."

Yo, What Does This Have to Do With Convention?

Patience, I'm getting there! So, there are plenty of 3rd party frameworks out there to overcome the ORM/Unit Testing deficits in ASP.NET. For unit testing, we have MBunit, NUnit/NUnitAsp, et al. and for ORM's we have LLBLGEN pro, Castle ActiveRecord, NHibernate, et al. The list goes on and on. The result of all this diversity is a very separated and divided developer community. Some developers like to use LLBLGEN, others prefer Nhibernate, and more often than not, the Nhibernate guys hate the LLBLGEN guys (I don't get it!). While all of this diversification is neat because it gives us developers a lot of options, it sucks bad because it introduces a huge amount of configuration complexities.

A Confession...

We're entirely guilty of this at BrightMix. Example: for our ASP.NET projects, we typically use LLBLGEN for our ORM, MBunit as our Unit testing framework, a mix of 3rd party controls (fckeditor, obout controls, nvelocity, et. al.), and an MVC-esque framework that we rolled ourselves.

This setup is cool because:

• it's highly configured for us
• we can crap out a new ASP.NET web application pretty damn quickly.

This set up is crappy because:

• 3rd party stuff usually costs money, at least most good 3rd party stuff
• configuration and integration of 3rd party stuff requires a lot of time and understanding
• pretty much no convention

I wonder... of all the ASP.NET developers out there, what percent of them are using a configured set up similar to ours? My guess is probably not very many.

So, Why is Convention Good?

Imagine you're in charge of hiring some ASP.NET developers. Your team uses one of the many ORM and unit testing frameworks out there, a custom MVC framework, and some other miscellaneous add-ons. What you'll find is that most ASP.NET developers have never even heard of your 3rd party stuff, let alone used it. No, the reality is you will have to teach a newly hired ASP.NET developer the in's and out's of your configuration, which is probably going to take a long, long time. The more configuration, the longer it will take.

With RoR, this conundrum is practically eliminated. 99% of Rails developers will know how to use the standard issue ORM, unit testing, and javascript / ajax libraries with which rails is bundled. Talk about a time saver.

I just read through this post after writing it, and it appears as though I have a lot of bad things to say about ASP.NET, and I, inadvertently, have a lot of good things to say about Rails. Blarg! Maybe I'm just bitter after working with ASP.NET for so long and seeing (and writing) so much terrible, crappy code.

Well, my next post in this series will talk about the future of ASP.NET, which gives me a glimmer of hope for ol' Microsoft.

Microsoft Ajax is Microsoft's free ASP.NET ajax/javascript extension library which is composed of Microsoft Ajax and the extension library, Ajax Control Toolkit. It came out sometime in 2005 - I don't remember exactly when, but it's not until recently that I actually used it extensively.

At first, I was excited about Microsoft Ajax's release; my once bland ASP.NET apps were going to become alive with ajax and javascript! However, after working with Microsoft Ajax for a while now, I'm mostly just frustrated and disappointed. It's dumbed down too much... to the point where a savvy developer will limited and restricted. Sorry Microsoft, wrapping my entire page in an <UpdatePanel> is far from efficient and Ajaxy, even if it does eliminate the "postback flicker."

Also irritating is the name of the Ajax Control Toolkit, which is about the biggest misnomer ever. Most of the controls in this library, albeit useful, have absolutely no Ajax functionality whatsoever. I'm going to make a stab in the dark here and guess that Microsoft's marketing department decided that this title would catch the attention of non-developer people who don't know anything about Ajax... other than that they want it in their application. Boo!

The Sadly Drag and Drop Mentality Re-visted

A while ago, I wrote an article in which I bag on Microsoft for making it possible for developers to drag-and-drop together a web app using ASP.NET and Visual Studio. Well, they tailored towards this style of development with the Microsoft Ajax library, too, and what they ended up creating is a framework that's really only fit for usage in very basic web apps or web apps in which flexibility and performance are entirely unimportant. Unfortunately for us, these are exactly the types of web apps that Average Joe ASP.NET developer seems to create. *Sigh*

Not enough Documentation!

My final grievance is with the documentation for Microsoft Ajax. There's no meaty API that details out all of the javascript behind the Ajax and Ajax Toolkit controls, and this is what I need to know 99% of the time. What I end up doing is painstakingly digging through Microsoft Ajax's complex javascript libraries by hand in firebug... or googling for a solution, hoping that someone else who speaks English has figured it out. Both, obviously, are less than optimal solutions.

Example: I've wanted to trigger the refresh of an <UpdatePanel> control from javascript. This seems like a fairly easy but important feature. You won't find any official documentation on how to do this. If you google for it, you'll find that it can be done using a few methods, all of which are basically hacks that circumvent/trick the normal Ajax framework's behavior. Fantastically not awesome!

I recently started using Ruby on Rails and the Prototype javascript library. The two frameworks are built closely together, similarly to ASP.NET and Microsoft Ajax. However, the documentation for Rails and Prototype is nothing short of awesome.

I'm hopeful that future releases of Microsoft Ajax, if there are any, will address some of these shortcomings that I've repeatedly run into. We shall see, I suppose.

My Roots

My initial plunge into the world of web development started with classic ASP about 3 years ago. I'm sure most developers out there would agree that Classic ASP is not so awesome anymore. Imagine putting VBScript, HTML, and SQL code in a blender, hitting liquefy, and pouring the contents into a ".asp" file. That's, in a nutshell, how most of the classic ASP that I worked with looked. (Obviously, not all classic ASP is this terrible.)

Shortly after doing ASP work for a few months, I was introduced to ASP.NET. I quickly discovered that ASP.NET totally kicked classic ASP's ass; it provided all sorts of cool server-side controls and the power of the .NET framework. Couple that with some tight integration into Visual Studio, and here's what you have:

	AND
ASP.NET (BMW Z4)		Classic ASP (Rusted Junk Box)

A year later, Visual Studio 2005 and ASP.NET 2.0 came out and made things even sweeter. A number of outstanding issues in Visual Studio 2003 and ASP.NET 1.1 were addresses and plenty of cool new enhancements were added. How could things get any better? I had become a stanch ASP.NET supporter.

Along comes Rails

Chad Fowler suggests that we developers should try to learn at least one new programming language per year. Not because we may be using a new programming language at your day job, but because it will broaden our minds and give us new perspective and insight into solving problems.

This is exactly what happened to me. I used Ruby on Rails (RoR) to create a web-based IRC-like chatting app. After learning the in's and out's of RoR, I've since returned to writing ASP.NET, frequently finding myself working on a piece of code and thinking, "how would I do this in rails?" More often than not, I end up perturbed and unsatisfied, knowing that rails would allow for a simpler and cleaner solution. Blarg!

Without going into all of the technical details, I've concluded that RoR's is superior to ASP.NET in that it:

• has a true model/view/controller (MVC) implementation
• is way better at handling Ajax requests
• can cleanly handle URL rewriting
• has as a sweet ORM tool, ActiveRecord, baked right into the framework
• requires little-to-no initial configuration
• built-in testability
• makes it more difficult for the developer to write crappy, inelegant code (note: it does not eliminate the possibility.)

I'll talk be talking about the Convention over Configuration in my next post in this series

Standing in "the office"

Monday was my first day of self-employment for my business, BrightMix.

What can I say? It was pretty rad. I got up at around 10, showered, and put on some comfortable clothes. As you can see, this is the living room in my house, which is decked out in a sweet, new laminate floor not too long ago. The way the desks are setup, it looks kind of like the bridge of a ship in Star Trek. 

We left to go purchasing office-type supplies, but realized, after getting to Sam's Club, that we didn't really need anything other than a white board. Speaking of whiteboards, we decided to make our own, rather than spending $50 on a tiny, crappy white board from Office Max. As this guide indicates, Making your own isn't hard, plus it's considerably cheaper! I'll be posting pictures of the final product soon.

 
The BrightMix Lounge

Will my Lifestyle change considerably?

I'm curious to see how some of my day to day habits conform to this new style of work. Things like:

• sleeping
• eating
• napping
• working
• entertainment

Thus far, I've been sleeping longer, but also working more... I'll note any more observations as they appear.

I've been meaning to make some alterations to Zinknation's layout and I've finally gotten around to it.

The change list:

• New logo (I hacked it together myself!)
• Fancy Zigzag background
• Center/fixed-width layout

Liquid layouts + blogs = boo!

The biggest change was moving the site from a liquid/elastic width layout to a more simplified fixed-width site that is centered on the page. Deep down inside, I like to use liquid layouts because they're a bit more difficult to create and, generally, much cooler. However, I've come to the conclusion that liquid layouts are pretty lame for article-based sites, like blogs. If you have a really big monitor and you maximize the browser, you can end up having an entire paragraph spanned across one really long line. To me, it's just hard to read and looks bad.

Of course, the debate between fixed/liquid layouts has raged on amongst the web design community for a number of years.

In the business world, my experience has taught me that clients generally do not care that a web site has a liquid layout, they just care that it looks good and doesn't take forever to design. So, for general purpose web sites, I recommend a simple fixed-width layout. However...

When liquid layouts rock...

For the most part, any sort of web-based application will probably look and function better with a liquid layout. Google maps, Google Docs,  and Campfire are all prime examples. They actually increase the amount of content that can be display in the browser--they don't just make the existing content s-t-r-e-t-c-h across the screen.

            
Google Maps: 1024 x 768 versus 1650 x 1050

 

But, I digress, let me know what you think about the new layout!