I have recently started developing applications for corporate clients in VB.net and C#.
Although Microsoft might want folks to think that they need to buy Visual Studio to create ASP.NET web sites, VB.NET and C# are basically scripting languages like PHP.
I don't think it would be difficult to add support for ASP.NET in Rapid PHP. Are there are any plans to do so? I think a code editor that supports both ASP.NET and PHP would be a best seller.
- - Wild
Any plans to support ASP.NET?
Moderator: kfury77
Forum rules
Please follow these guidelines when posting feature requests. This will help to increase the value of your contribution.
Please follow these guidelines when posting feature requests. This will help to increase the value of your contribution.
- Do not create new topics for already requested features. Add your comments to the existing feature request topics instead;
- Create separate topic for each feature suggestion. Do NOT post a number of non-related feature suggestions in a single topic;
- Give your topic a meaningful title. Do NOT create topics with meaningless titles, such as "My Suggestion" or "My Problem".
-
Raster
that just doesn't make sense. Firstly, you can use notepad if you really do not want to pay for visual studio. There are also many other.net development tools from other makers.
Secondly, to support.net, you would have two require the user install the.net framework. And also the SDK.
thirdly,they are completely different things. I don't know what you mean by scripting languages, unless you mean the code is in text files. You can say the same of Java and C++. adding support for.net is like adding support for C++.
if you think people want something that does everything under the sun, then we would all only have one program.
Secondly, to support.net, you would have two require the user install the.net framework. And also the SDK.
thirdly,they are completely different things. I don't know what you mean by scripting languages, unless you mean the code is in text files. You can say the same of Java and C++. adding support for.net is like adding support for C++.
if you think people want something that does everything under the sun, then we would all only have one program.
I agree with Raster here. VS is already a very competent tool and as he points out, there are already other competent tools that deal with .net too.
What makes Rapid PHP so great is that it fills a much needed hole in the PHP GUI market. There are many that have attempted to fill the hole but few, if any, have actually managed to do it with the simplicity, lack of bloat and functionality which Rapid brings to the table.
Once that changes to trying to be all things to all people, I could see the greatness being diluted.
What makes Rapid PHP so great is that it fills a much needed hole in the PHP GUI market. There are many that have attempted to fill the hole but few, if any, have actually managed to do it with the simplicity, lack of bloat and functionality which Rapid brings to the table.
Once that changes to trying to be all things to all people, I could see the greatness being diluted.
I would use it!
Even though there are tools out there like MS Visual Studio, it's extremly bulky and takes a while to open.
I develop for multiple platforms all the time, some times two or more in the same day.
I don't really want .net support built into the WebBuilder, but syntax highliting would be awesome.
Lately I started to build .Net apps w/o Codebehind (which is a class that needs to be compiled) and develop straight in the ASPX page it self which is automatically compiled by the IIS when launched. I have a few small-er .net projects setup this way and it would be ideal to access the aspx pages and edit them directly on the server via FTP.
It would basically be an update to your HTML with ASP template to add some more .Net specific key words and directives.
I can't possibly imagine you adding full fledged .Net support to your editor, because it comes so many flavors: c#, VB.net, Perl, c++ and the list goes on. C# and VB.net are by far most commonly used.
I develop for multiple platforms all the time, some times two or more in the same day.
I don't really want .net support built into the WebBuilder, but syntax highliting would be awesome.
Lately I started to build .Net apps w/o Codebehind (which is a class that needs to be compiled) and develop straight in the ASPX page it self which is automatically compiled by the IIS when launched. I have a few small-er .net projects setup this way and it would be ideal to access the aspx pages and edit them directly on the server via FTP.
It would basically be an update to your HTML with ASP template to add some more .Net specific key words and directives.
I can't possibly imagine you adding full fledged .Net support to your editor, because it comes so many flavors: c#, VB.net, Perl, c++ and the list goes on. C# and VB.net are by far most commonly used.
-
WereCougar
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:45 am
Yes, a lot of MS developers use VS and VS.NET. But then, in my experience, they tend to think that MS solutions require MS software.
However, it is incredibly bloated, extremely expensive, and frustrating as all get-out. That is, if you are used to using UltraEdit or something similar. Microsoft even offers a *free* "Visual Web Developer 2005 Express," but it's too bloated to use effectively.
The one thing I would hope for in WeBuilder is (very) simple syntax highlighting for C#. I can accomplish this somewhat right now by assigning .aspx and .ascx extensions to the "HTML" scheme. But .cs files are completely B+W.
My main reason for evaluating WeBuilder? As a replacement to HomeSite (I've been using that since version 1.0). I use it for every language I develop in; I prefer one editor than having several language-specific editors (even though I lose some features).
To Karlis: This editor kicks ass. This is the new HomeSite.
However, it is incredibly bloated, extremely expensive, and frustrating as all get-out. That is, if you are used to using UltraEdit or something similar. Microsoft even offers a *free* "Visual Web Developer 2005 Express," but it's too bloated to use effectively.
The one thing I would hope for in WeBuilder is (very) simple syntax highlighting for C#. I can accomplish this somewhat right now by assigning .aspx and .ascx extensions to the "HTML" scheme. But .cs files are completely B+W.
My main reason for evaluating WeBuilder? As a replacement to HomeSite (I've been using that since version 1.0). I use it for every language I develop in; I prefer one editor than having several language-specific editors (even though I lose some features).
To Karlis: This editor kicks ass. This is the new HomeSite.
-
syrupcore
- Top Contributor
- Posts: 917
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:58 am
- Location: Portland, Oregon, usa
- Contact:
Visual Studio is a fat beer turd but .NET and VS has so much stupid introspection going on, and it's free, I can't imagine wanting to compete with it. C# code complete/syntax highlighting seems doable but .NET is a massive framework, not just a programming language.
I also agree that most .NET fanatics don't want to use anything but microsoft products for microsoft development. totally in love with the company.
I also agree that most .NET fanatics don't want to use anything but microsoft products for microsoft development. totally in love with the company.
I have just started using WeBuilder and the primary reason is the current support for asp.net. I really appreciate having a quick lite editor for aspx/ascx/asmx files (c#).
I would like to add a vote to have the code explorer and object explorer support c# files and aspx/ascx/asmx files with embedded c#.
-Neil
I would like to add a vote to have the code explorer and object explorer support c# files and aspx/ascx/asmx files with embedded c#.
-Neil