The framework itself was mostly good tech, as long as you didn't use webforms.
Probably the biggest flaw in the framework was not having a way to capture all unhandled exceptions (Application_Error does not catch unhandled asmx exceptions).
... and WebForms.
WebForms was good, as long as you didn't try to use it in way it wasn't intended, like doing direct DOM manipulation on top of the UpdatePanel, trying to access private state, refusing to use components or not using separation of concerns. Those are the same things that would also make React apps shitty, but the reason React works is because in React we just don't do it.
WebForms was good, but it needed the same amount of good engineering that a modern React app needs to be good, period. Unfortunately lots of programmers using it back in the day didn't have this knowledge because of lack of good documentation and good practices.
> it had much better benchmarks than interpreted languages at the time
That seems an odd statement for someone not confusing WebForms with the tech stack.
You can build applications in asp.net framework without the use of WebForms (and you could do so before MVC existed). THAT tech stack was pretty reasonable. It was WebForms specifically that was the problem.
While we're here, cherry-picking one sentence of a post and putting it out of context to try to invalidate all my other opinions is not arguing in good faith. You seem to be trying to prove that I'm "ignorant" or something, but you're the only one displaying any ignorance here, since you're not putting forth any argument, but rather just parroting that something is crap and trying to "win an argument" using fallacies. There is nothing to be learned from your posts at all, no different perspective, no justification of your opinion, no insights into why you dislike it. You're just doubling down on a preconception that you have no justification for.
> Webforms was their attempt to bring the VB6 workflow onto the web and it was a terrible idea specifically because the web is not desktop.
As for performance, viewstate was a huge performance issue. That's a large part about what I meant when I said they tried to bring the VB6 workflow onto the web. In order to get there, they had to create the viewstate mechanisms, which created a different set of problems.
They wanted developers to be able to dragNdrop and then double click and write a small bit of code to do a thing, just like in VB6. Only, in order to actually get that to work, they had to come up with things that were actively harmful in a website (and it got worse when they tried to shoehorn ajax into it).
> There is nothing to be learned from your posts at all, no different perspective, no justification of your opinion, no insights into why you dislike it. You're just doubling down on a preconception that you have no justification for.
this is just an HN dog whistle. You could have asked.
What killed it was lack of community best practices. It NEEDED Custom Components and separation of concerns (using something like MVVM) for it to work well. But without a community around it (and with Microsoft's lack of interest), most people ended up writing spaghetti code.
MVC on the other hand had a large community around it developing best practices. MVC code could also be a clusterfuck if you wanted to: you could put all your logic in the view for example. The reason it didn't happen was because there was widespread education around the MVC paradigm. WebForms didn't have this.
Also it didn't integrate too well with jQuery, which was the new hotness. Today most people are smart enough not to use jQuery to mutate a DOM tree generated by a React component, but back then jQuery was the new kid on the block and people blamed the problems on WebForm, rather on the fact they were mixing two incompatible paradigms.