Search the text of this post. Do you see the words “corrupt” or “pureness” anywhere? No? So why are you quoting the words? Also, where is the derision you speak of? And what “strawman” am I using. Do you have a clue what it even means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Anyways, it’s fun to see you get all bent out of shape, but the reality is that I’m not attacking Webforms. I’m just pointing out some of it’s abstractions and why I don’t personally see them as being necessary (since what Webforms is attempting to abstract away isn’t even complicated).

And I generally don’t create forms where multiple records can be updated, but if I did I don’t see what the problem is. Where did I say that you can’t update multiple items? Why does Webforms make that any better?

As for relating verbs to CRUD operations, how can you *not* see the correlation? GET, POST, PUT, DELETE; Read, Update, Create, Delete. Hmm… Not to mention the fact that countless others make the same observation. Search google for “http verbs crud”.

HTTP in and of itself is completely stateless. To say that ASP.NET is somehow “corrupting” the “pureness” of HTTP because of webforms is a gigantic strawman.

Quite simply, any platform that offers any sort of state facade over HTTP is basically guilty of the “stateful” paradigm you deride ASP.NET.

And I really don’t understand how you can relate HTTP verbs to database operations. So what, you never ever design forms where you could possibly update/add/delete multiple items at once?

Stefan

This “The problem is that what Webforms attempts to abstract away is actually simpler than the abstraction!” is a fantastic explanation!

Well done.

Alex