3 replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
source | link

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (herehere and herehere) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (for example, C# and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're using a collection of several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (here and here) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (for example, C# and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're using a collection of several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (here and here) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (for example, C# and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're using a collection of several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.

2 Fix wording
source | link

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (here and here) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (C# (for example), C# and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're assemblingusing a collection of several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (here and here) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (C# (for example) and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're assembling several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (here and here) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (for example, C# and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're using a collection of several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.

1
source | link

In general, maintainability indicates how quickly a change can be made to the existing code and how easy it can be made without a risk of introducing bugs or breaking existing code. The questions you've linked to (here and here) cover these general aspects of maintainability very well.

I'm making some assumptions here, but it sounds like your colleagues aren't interested in these general aspects of maintainability. They're interested in the question of "How can we even find someone to make a change to the existing code?" SharePoint can (I think) be customized by someone with no particular programming experience; ASP.NET WebForms starts out with a pretty easy learning curve (since it does its best to abstract away all of the details that web development introduces), and there are lots of people who are at least minimally proficient in it.

ASP.NET MVC and jQuery have more of a learning curve. You need to be familiar with two different programming languages (C# (for example) and JavaScript). You need to know HTML and CSS. You're assembling several libraries that you assemble yourself (jQuery and DataTables.Net in your example) instead of having the vendor give you a nice consistent framework.

An MVC + JavaScript web site has a lot of advantages and can be more maintainable for a skilled developer. But for an organization that doesn't specialize in software development and doesn't want to have to develop and retain that talent, it starts to look a lot less maintainable, since it becomes much less certain that they'll even have someone who can make changes.