eval()
is not necessary. This will work fine:
var date = new Date(parseInt(jsonDate.substr(6)));
The substr()
function takes out the /Date(
part, and the parseInt()
function gets the integer and ignores the )/
at the end. The resulting number is passed into the Date
constructor.
I have intentionally left out the radix (the 2nd argument to parseInt
); see my comment below.
Also, I completely agree with Rory's comment: ISO-8601 dates are preferred over this old format - so this format generally shouldn't be used for new development.
For ISO-8601 formatted JSON dates, just pass the string into the Date
constructor:
var date = new Date(jsonDate); //no ugly parsing needed; full timezone support
Website:
The Web Site project is compiled on the fly. You end up with a lot more DLL files, which can be a pain. It also gives problems when you have pages or controls in one directory that need to reference pages and controls in another directory since the other directory may not be compiled into the code yet. Another problem can be in publishing.
If Visual Studio isn't told to re-use the same names constantly, it will come up with new names for the DLL files generated by pages all the time. That can lead to having several close copies of DLL files containing the same class name,
which will generate plenty of errors. The Web Site project was introduced with Visual Studio 2005, but it has turned out not to be popular.
Web Application:
The Web Application Project was created as an add-in and now exists as part
of SP 1 for Visual Studio 2005. The main differences are the Web Application Project
was designed to work similarly to the Web projects that shipped with Visual Studio 2003. It will compile the application into a single DLL file at build
time. To update the project, it must be recompiled and the DLL file
published for changes to occur.
Another nice feature of the Web Application
project is it's much easier to exclude files from the project view. In the
Web Site project, each file that you exclude is renamed with an excluded
keyword in the filename. In the Web Application Project, the project just
keeps track of which files to include/exclude from the project view without
renaming them, making things much tidier.
Reference
The article ASP.NET 2.0 - Web Site vs Web Application project also gives reasons on why to use one and not the other. Here is an excerpt of it:
- You need to migrate large Visual Studio .NET 2003 applications to VS
2005? use the Web Application project.
- You want to open and edit any directory as a Web project without
creating a project file? use Web Site
project.
- You need to add pre-build and post-build steps during compilation?
use Web Application project.
- You need to build a Web application using multiple Web
projects? use the Web Application project.
- You want to generate one assembly for each page? use the Web Site project.
- You prefer dynamic compilation and working on pages without building
entire site on each page view? use Web
Site project.
- You prefer single-page code model to code-behind model? use Web Site
project.
Web Application Projects versus Web Site Projects (MSDN) explains the differences between the web site and web application projects. Also, it discusses the configuration to be made in Visual Studio.
Best Solution
Even if there are tools to convert between classic ASP and ASP.NET, they're not going to generate very good results: the two environments are just too fundamentally different. A quick Google turns up a few results, mostly of the "we'll have our guys in India do it" variety.
My advice would be not to touch your existing ASP code for now. The runtime environment will be supported by Microsoft for the foreseeable future, so there's no urgent need to migrate. Instead, start working on new functionality in ASP.NET: this way, you won't be held back by legacy concepts, and can use the new coolness afforded by the Framework (including stuff like ASP.NET MVC) in any way you see fit.
Of course, your new code will need to work with the existing ASP environment. Sharing session state between ASP and ASP.NET will most likely be one of your first requirements, but you'll soon identify more issues like that.
The 'right' solution for such issues will depend entirely on your current code and requirements: sometimes, you'll be able to wrap .NET code in a COM object for use by your ASP code, sometimes partial porting/migration may be the solution.
However, on average, the 'two worlds' approach should be entirely feasible, and allow you to develop exciting new features without having to worry about your legacy code.
December 2009 addition to original answer: Just came across the ASP Classic Compiler, which is an actively maintained VBscript compiler that converts classic ASP pages into code that runs natively on ASP.NET. It has several cool features, such as the ability to use it as a ASP.NET MVC custom ViewEngine, so despite its beta status, it would definitely seem worth keeping an eye on...