Who benefits (or is at a disadvantage) with MVC: the Developer or the Designer?

When comparing MVC to ASP.NET Forms, which one offers a better design-time experience for开发者_JS百科 a web designer? ... which is better for the developer?

I was just looking at the new Razor MVC syntax and think that designers may simply delete stray } that are used in for..each loops. One might say that ASP.NET WebForms offers a better web designer experience.

ASP.NET offer better designer experience? Completely diasagree. There are few designers that understand what <asp:GridView runat="server" ... tranlates into. In classic webforms with all those user controls there's less control over the generated HTML which is what designers work with. So from that perspective I think that the Razor view engine is much closer to the raw HTML that designers work with rather than classic WebForms.

As for the developer it is very subjective and I prefer not to answer which one is better. Each technology has its pros and cons for the different types of projects. So always choose the right technology for your specific needs.

Generally, I would say neither. View engines aside, if you're in Visual Studio and either moving controls around, or binding your view in an MVC app, you are not a designer, you're a developer ;)

Now, as far as which is more designer friendly both during and after the development process, I would say MVC since you have a much higher degree of control over the CSS, and it's easier to translate a pure HTML mockup into an MVC app than into the equivelant web controls.

One of the main purposes of MVC is separation of concerns between design and code, so booth the developer and the designer will benefit from MVC.

Old ASP.Net mixes code and design in a way that the programmer needs to consider design and the designer needs to implement code. MVC is a much better way of cooperate those different responsibilities.