Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.NET 5.0

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 466 posts

Re: .NET 5.0

#391

Post by brynjolf »

mattmanser wrote: post #122
sbelskie wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused as to what you want instead of what Asp.Net core offers. Nothing is forcing you to inject configuration or to use IOptions. In most cases you don’t even need to do anything with the configuration builder because that is part of the default of how the host gets setup. You’re configuration should be automatically built from environment vars and appsettings.json. And of course you can always just access env…

I think they should have done what every other framework does and make it super easy to access, like this: Env.Config("Settings:MyEasyValue"); Or: Env.Config ().MySuperEasyTypedValue; And the Dependency Injection? Sure, add some version you can DI with. But not the default. I now know how to navigate the mess they've made, but it's not time that I feel where I gained anything in my life, it was just frustrating. Here…

They have that? You can call Configuration manually if you prefer that way. I feel like everyone in this thread is working overtime to justify complaining when there are multiple options to do what you want.

Re: .NET 5.0

#392

Post by Netcob »

kumarvvr wrote: post #345
mattmanser wrote: post #23

So, on the plus side with the new .net, I recently made a .net core web app on Linux, and generally it's been pretty easy. I'm also impressed at just how fast asp.net core is compared to asp.net, the time it takes to open your site in debug mode has dropped dramatically, from what used to be 1/2 minute in asp.net to a few seconds in .net core. On the bad side? Mainly the asp.net core team and their push for Dependenc…

Also, I find DI to be very useful. I dont know about small projects, but in any reasonable size projects, having a DI container is a god send. Easy to setup and use.

Yeah, I'm pretty shocked how much hate it seems to get. Maybe it just makes things easier for simpletons like me?

The one issue I can see with DI in ASP.NET Core is that it doesn't really do DI correctly. The point of DI is that ultimately, you have complete control over how you build your dependency graph and you shouldn't be forced to use a container at all if you don't want to. With a DI abstraction the developers are basically saying "you can do what you want, as long as it's pretty much exactly what we expect you to do".

This explains this pretty well: https://blog.simpleinjector.org/2016/06/whats-wrong-with-the...

Re: .NET 5.0

#394

Post by littlecranky67 »

recursive wrote: post #297
_acco wrote: post #258

The future is very bright for .NET. It has the right raison d'etre - .NET is part of the growth story for Nadella-Microsoft. They already have you programming in their editors (VS/Code) and pushing to their VCS (Github). They're even teaching you the C# type system with TypeScript :) If they can just convince you to use their stack, Azure will win you over from AWS every time. As a result, I really wanted to adopt .N…

The type system in typescript is a lot more advanced than the one available in C#.

This is due to the fact that typescript needs to interop with javascript, and existing js ecosystem has some very weird "typing" decisions. In TypeScript you can express types that you would never ever do in a "sane" language like C# which has proper typing design in place.

Re: .NET 5.0

#395

Post by littlecranky67 »

cutler wrote: post #327
ablekh wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the .NET context, browser-targeted deployments can have a minimal download overhead of around 2 MB, which is a far cry from 50 MB. How? Blazor. For details, see https://blog.ndepend.com/blazor-internals-you-need-to-know .

That's 2Mb front-end which is quite heavy.

tell that to websites auto-playing videos (in muted state) or even better, using videos as page background that play without interop.

Re: .NET 5.0

#396

Post by Netcob »

BatteryMountain wrote: post #381
mattmanser wrote: post #23

So, on the plus side with the new .net, I recently made a .net core web app on Linux, and generally it's been pretty easy. I'm also impressed at just how fast asp.net core is compared to asp.net, the time it takes to open your site in debug mode has dropped dramatically, from what used to be 1/2 minute in asp.net to a few seconds in .net core. On the bad side? Mainly the asp.net core team and their push for Dependenc…

The forced DI pattern makes sense here because: Most DI containers are not just injectors, but they also manage life cycles/scopes of objects: singleton/transient/scoped. Since in web development, a request hitting a controller endpoint is typically short lived and most objects and services are tied to the main request scope, it makes sense that all your objects should live and die when the request is made and comple…

I totally agree. It took me a while to wrap my head around it, but my code has improved so much once I did. Very small classes that each do one easy to understand thing. All the structure stuff is in one part of the code, ready to be understood and modified, instead of scattered across tens of modules. Most of the time all I need for a new feature is a class that implements a specific interface, announces to the world what it needs to do its job by declaring its dependencies in the constructor (as intended by the language and OOP in general) and then only implements its core logic instead of meddling with creation and disposal that has nothing to do with its actual job.

Re: .NET 5.0

#397

Post by zokula »

okareaman wrote: post #291
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google will move on and then all of the developers who hinged their platforms on it will need somewhere to go to.

This bugbear seems as outdated at "M$FT is evil." Every company cancels projects. Flutter/Dart appears to have staying power.

Huh? The saying "Microsoft is evil" is as valid today as it was 20 years ago.

Re: .NET 5.0

#398

Post by [deleted] »

jdking wrote: post #243
GordonS wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My biggest bugbear is the way you access your config, which is an absolute and utter kafka-esque mess. Because someone at MS was drinking the DI kool-aid you have to add a minimum of 5 lines of code to any class you want to access config values in I'm not sure if maybe you're referring to the Options stuff? The way I do it is pretty simple. 1. Create a POCO that represents your config. You can have properties for b…

+1 This is the approach I use, to register a config interface in the DI, just grab IConfiguration and bind it to a config class. The options stuff is a car crash.

[deleted]

Re: .NET 5.0

#399

Post by hackerfromthefu »

asyncawaaait wrote: post #320
hackerfromthefu wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the far worse stack traces and debugging? Whats a way to get the utility of normal debugging while using async?

Stack traces were massively improved in 2.1. Using a good IDE (Rider or Visual Studio), debugging async/await code works as expected. Are you doing interop or calling unmanaged code?

Thanks, I will make sure to check this out. Does anyone have any articles or documentation on this?

Re: .NET 5.0

#400

Post by ddek »

mattmanser wrote: post #150
elamje wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the DI for config and async push. Too much ceremony for a very simple task. Async being used by auth can certainly be frustrating if you have sync code that needs to use it at some point. Then suddenly you have to redo all sync code that calls the async method. I’ve been experiencing the same issue with some Azure SDKs that only expose async methods rather than both async and sync. Frustrating to have to…

You can actually just use `.Wait` or `.Result()` most of the time if you just want to make it synchronous if it's just scrappy code. Though you'll probably hit the `async void return` runtime bug at some point where you accidentally return void from a method you tried to make async but then got bored of rewriting everything, so just whack in a .Wait or .Result() but haven't returned Task and the damn thing fails at r…

Never, ever, ever do this in production. This will block at least two threads, which will cause premature thread pool starvation at spike loads.

This pattern, 'sync-over-async', is to be avoided at all costs, at all times.

You're not going to like it, but the MS recommended way of dealing with this is to make your callstack async.

In all honest - if you're making an ASP net core web app, go all in on async from the start. If you have to mix and match, never go sync-over-async inside an action.

Post reply on HN