Are there websites that cannot be created using ASP.NET MVC

Question

I was going to ask this question ... but since he already asked, I will ask another.

I have never created a website and I think it’s time for me to learn how to do this. (I have a simple one that I can do for the client.)

I personally LOVE the Convention Configuration paradigm at the core of MVC (and I personally hope that Microsoft is moving in this direction in many other areas).

My question is ...

If I study and work on mastering ASP.NET MVC, can I build ANY website? I ask because in Microsoft jargon it is implied that this is not suitable for every project. Should I be concerned about the lack of tool support? In particular, you can use third-party web controls with MVC (for example, telerik stuff), and if not, is it important?

Set

Answer 1

The answer is no. Ideally, with ASP.NET MVC you can build ALL the required site / application. As a result, it generates HTML + Javascript, so it is quite simple.

The question should be that there is an application that is not suitable for ASP.NET MVC. And the answer is "it depends."

With ASP.NET MVC, you don’t have all the “ready-to-use” controls, such as telerik, components arts, but you have excellent access to the generated HTML, so it’s quite simple to create a grid.

There is an article describing the differences between WebForms and MVC, you can read here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd942833.aspx

NTN

Answer 2

Since MVC gives you full control over your HTML, it follows that you can create any website using MVC. After all, websites are just HTML.

Third-party controls are a slightly different story. Telerik supports MVC to some extent and says that they are working on more comprehensive support, so you can probably get your controls to work, although perhaps not as easily as in Web Forms. Many other third-party ASP.NET controls are so completely dependent on view state and postbacks that they won’t work at all. My own experience is that it is often more convenient to use nonASP.NET controls such as jQuery UI . On the other hand, even if the control is for ASP.NET other than MVC, it can sometimes work in MVC . The question is, is it worth the effort? Usually, only if there is no better, free, alternative that often exists.

I would not worry too much about the lack of a RAD-style tool. When working in MVC style, you will be much more concerned with the specific HTML that you allow than with the ability to drag and drop the grid onto the page. This is a different way of working.

How much does your question mean: "Is ASP.NET MVC the best way to build any website?" The answer is no. There is no better way to create any website. On the other hand, there are sites that you cannot create using ASP.NET MVC (almost everything where fine-grained control over the released HTML is a strict requirement), and MVC does not have such a restriction.

Answer 3

Perhaps a RoR fan site;)?

Seriously, although most third-party controls only support web forms, this may not be the reason.

Answer 4

I think you need to learn more about the differences between MVC and Webforms.

You should not “master” MVC, you should learn both MVC and Webforms (strengths and weaknesses), and then choose which Framework is best for each project.

No Catch-All frame.

Answer 5

Basically, WebForms gives you less control, more overhead, and faster development time, while ASP.Net MVC gives you more control, less overhead, and takes more time to develop.

So, if you have a fast intranet web application, you will most likely want to use WebForms, and if you have a fully functional public site, you will most likely want to use MVC.