How can you argue on the topic "ASP.NET WebForms vs. ASP.NET MVC"? After all, these technologies INTERCUT?

Question

ASP.NET

How can you argue about "ASP.NET WebForms vs. ASP.NET MVC"? After all, these technologies INTERCUT?
Being as much of an ASP.NET noob as these spoofers, I thought that in ASP.NET WebForms only the ASPX view engine was available (with a bunch of out-of-the-box controls, components, and WYSIWYG), while in ASP.NET MVC only the new view engine was available. Razor, which does not have all these goodies.
Then, with some surprise, I discovered that in MVC 3 and higher - in fact, 2 engines are provided to choose from, and in MVC 2, there is only one ASPX at all, because. Razor just isn't there yet.
Today I created an ASP.NET MVC 2 application, opened Index.aspx - and again I was surprised to find the "Design" tab there.
I was finally finished off by what I saw when I switched to this tab! Instead of just a set of default HTML tags (as I imagined), I saw the same set of "ready-made controls and components" as in WebForms, and quite a full-fledged WYSIWYG for all this ...
I threw the Button button there, launched it, that's it works... I tried to add a Click event - it also added the norm, albeit not very convenient, that it was added directly to the aspx file using script runat="server", but it was ADDED, and IntelliSense for C # is there.
Having doubts, I decided to double-check, I created an ASP.NET WebForms application - alas, everything is the same: both controls, and code, and practically no differences.
Conclusion: comparing "ASP.NET WebForms vs ASP.NET MVC" is absurd.
That's right - compare "ASPX vs Razor". And MVC or not MVC is already architecture. I won’t be surprised if it turns out that through certain crutches you can adapt Razor without MVC, as is normally done with ASPX.

Answer 1

Did you smoke? what nonsense. You are confusing page generation technologies, the client request processing cycle, architecture in the end on the one hand - and just two different template engines. Razor and ASPX are just template engines, you can write your own in theory. But WebForms and MVC are fundamentally different technologies. They have different everything from the concept. They can be used simultaneously in the same application and on the same site, but this is a bad practice and is justified only when migrating from WebForms to MVC

Answer 2

Share bumps.
The technologies are completely different, even the architecture of the application is different. The only thing they have in common is one thing, a core for processing requests and communicating with IIS. All. In WebForms, roughly speaking, controls are connected through a channel to event handlers on the server. In MVC, the main thing is controllers with a set of actions that can give you code through a template engine, a file, or serialized data. The fact that both technologies are tied to System.Web allows you to use both technologies in one application. The fact that these things are different is evidenced by the fact that in the new ASP.NET 5 (not to be confused with the MVC versions), MS sawed out WebForms completely, when you create an MVC project, you will not add an ASPX file to it.
You have a strange logic, without reading anything, having modest skills in these technologies, just by creating a project, adding a couple of files, you made a conclusion. Strange, very

Answer 3

Although it is possible to create .aspx and .ascx files in ASP.NET MVC projects, nevertheless, for asp.net mvc they are foreign bodies, artifacts from WebForms.
>>> And MVC or not MVC is already an architecture
Purely theoretically, you can implement the MVC pattern on WebForms, but this is already a perversion
In ASP.NET MVC, there are no such concepts as "control" and "event" at all. More precisely, maybe there is, but not in the context that Web Forms or Win Forms
Your reasoning for some reason reminded me of a joke:
- When I was with my wife in Paris, we went to a French restaurant
- So how?
- McDonald's is like McDonald's
So are you, implement WebForms technologies in MVC, and then say that there is no difference

Answer 4

You have a very strange logic. You were "allowed" for the sake of convenience to add a page on the old template engine to the project, and you think that this means that WebForms is MVC? This is exactly what I saw from your experience.
Yes, MVC is an architecture, but ASP.NET MVC is primarily the name of the technology as a whole, i.e. the entire infrastructure and classes that provide the writing of such applications. And the template engine is not even the main thing behind the concept of ASP.NET MVC