Yep, its super easy to get started too:
<%@ Language="JScript" %>
<%
for( var i=0; i < 10; i++ ) {
Response.Write( "<br />" + i + " - MooTool Server-side!" );
}
// Alt syntax
for( var i=0; i < 10; i++ ) {
%>
<br />
<%= i %> - MooTool Server-side!
<%
}
%>
If you include the Mootools server-side cut then you get Class, String
goodies, etc too. simply include a SSI at the top of your file:
<%...@language="JScript" %>
<!--#include file="mootools.asp"-->
<%
// your code here
%>
You do need to wrap the mootools code in <% %> for the server to know its
ASP though.
ASP used to get a terrible rep for all the mixing of code/presentation and
repetition but if you put some thought into it you can come up with some
cracking apps that are nice and clean. Plus you can build up some nice
libraries too esp. when using mootools Class :)
My trouble is I struggle with the *nux stuff as I've been coding on MS stuff
for 15 years. But as JS runs in all browsers its been great to
see/use/expand all the client-side developments of recent years server side.
Out biggest clients site is all JScript ASP and no sign of it going
anywhere, and why should it. Its plenty fast enough and with a little
patching up with .net where it does struggle (we have a .net image resizer
and XML cacher layer for our CMS) it gets better and better. Anyway, I
wondered if a ASP solution (following CommonJS if possible) would help more
MS boys like me take interest?
I will say this though, coding server side in JS just puts a smile on my
face, far more fun than .net :)
Pete
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Aylott
<[email protected]>wrote:
> So you're using server-side JScript on IIS with asp?
>
> Very cool
>
> — Thomas Aylott
> SubtleGradient
> MooTools
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Pete Duncanson <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Excellent stuff! Theres me thinking I was the only one using it
>> commercially.
>>
>> Still trying to get my head around how the CommonJS stuff works, on first
>> look it seems to not want you to modify any of the Native objects which
>> would be a pain, no .each() etc. available without some hoop jumping. We
>> could end up lots of a lovely modules that all use different frameworks
>> which could really be a bind and lead to bloat. That or we end up with a
>> unified version (which I guess is what CommonJS is about but theres no
>> mention of a spec as yet) which would seem sensible but a sticky problem to
>> start as it will be a mind field of X does it like this, Y does it like that
>> style wars.
>>
>> In our ASP code we've been using Response.Write's to push stuff to the
>> response stream but after finding Jack and JSON Template I'm now thinking of
>> creating a new code of our code that tries to emulate this somewhat with a
>> final Response.Write at the end of the script. Also had an idea to create a
>> XML Document for each page which could be loaded from a static (or multiple
>> statics) and then you could do Element goodness with server-side before you
>> write it down to the Response Stream, this would give client-side coders a
>> leg up on how to do Server-Side as most of the DOM functions would be the
>> same. Is that an insane idea? I'm still pondering it :)
>>
>> Believe it or not the XML manipulation stuff is pretty damn fast on ASP
>> (MS got the guy who wrote the MS DOM stuff in for the re-write of their .net
>> implementation as their initial version was massively slower than the old
>> COM version). All the talk of ASP being slow tends to be based on old
>> articles from 10 years ago. On modern machines in the real world its
>> fantastically fast and really, really good fun to code with :)
>>
>> Pete
>
>
