Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Python is on the way up and third most popular but well behind C# and TypeScript. lolwut. TypeScript is niche compared to Python.
> from the perspective of recruiting in Australia. Even accounting for that line from the comment?
The Case for C# and .NET
61–70 of 376 posts
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's good to have an open ecosystem for using the language that doesn't rely on paying for an IDE? I personally soured on Kotlin for this same reason!
VS is free though.
It's slow, it's bloated, it's loaded with way too many configuration options and yet still doesn't have a lot of config I like from other editors. It has plenty of plugins and still manages to be missing extensions that I find important.
Development with Visual Studio just doesn't feel very good compared to other environments these days.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#63> For the front-end, JavaScript is unavoidable (for now) Author really needs to give Blazor a try. I wrote some comments last week speculating that I'd use Dart or TypeScript with C# .NET on the client because WebAssembly doesn't do DOM manipulation, but turns out I should have waited to learn it better before making a comment. I've learned I can add events and event handlers to elements without ever leaving C#. Then…
> Blazor is in development and will only get better. How good can it get though? Blazor WASM suffers from the huge initial, multi-megabyte download of the .NET runtime. How is that expected to come down to something in the range of 50-500kb what we have with most JS frameworks now? I just cannot do that on public-facing parts of an application. It is unusable when accessed from a slow mobile network. Company-internal…
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#64C# and TypeScript seem to be far and away the most popular programming languages today. At least from the perspective of recruiting in Australia. Python is on the way up and third most popular but well behind C# and TypeScript. Golang is on the way up but very small in terms of number of developers. Java is on the way down but will never vanish, it's just not super popular any more. Ruby is small enough to just be a…
IMO Python and C# are not comparable. Python is at best a simple scripting language, you really can't build anything globally scalable on it. No offense to people who use Python daily, just my own observations (probably wrong).
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#65And not comparing ASP.net to more mature web frameworks is also a strange choice. At the very least, you need very capable developers not to shoot yourself in the food with the enterprisy dependency injection magic. In my opinion much more so than with other frameworks. I mean, if you have a steady supply of highly-qualified dotnet engineers, go for it...
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#66C# and TypeScript seem to be far and away the most popular programming languages today. At least from the perspective of recruiting in Australia. Python is on the way up and third most popular but well behind C# and TypeScript. Golang is on the way up but very small in terms of number of developers. Java is on the way down but will never vanish, it's just not super popular any more. Ruby is small enough to just be a…
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tried writing a simple crud api with asp.net, which should parse and respond json. It was the worst development experience I ever had while writing json apis. Validation? Not existent. OpenAPI/swagger documentation generation? Not existent. Then it also tried to force me into using MVC, while acting that it is express with its middlewares. I switched back to node.js with fastify and wrote my app in an hour. I reall…
Validation and Swagger/OpenAPI have been available for a long time and well documented. I don't know what resources you used to learn ASP.NET, but they failed you.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#68> For the front-end, JavaScript is unavoidable (for now) Author really needs to give Blazor a try. I wrote some comments last week speculating that I'd use Dart or TypeScript with C# .NET on the client because WebAssembly doesn't do DOM manipulation, but turns out I should have waited to learn it better before making a comment. I've learned I can add events and event handlers to elements without ever leaving C#. Then…
If you're willing to go down the f# rabbit hole there's also Fable which I need to try but I've heard very good things about.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#69I also think that C# and .NET are awesome. Especially latest releases dotnet 6 and upcoming 7 have a ton of new things to be even more productive. I like the fact, that you can develop command line apps, Web APIs, Desktop Apps and smartphone apps all with the same toolset, including the fact that deployment is possible on nearly every major platform for every major platform (except iOS and macOS Apps, as always only…
I tried writing a simple crud api with asp.net, which should parse and respond json. It was the worst development experience I ever had while writing json apis. Validation? Not existent. OpenAPI/swagger documentation generation? Not existent. Then it also tried to force me into using MVC, while acting that it is express with its middlewares. I switched back to node.js with fastify and wrote my app in an hour. I reall…
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
VS is free though.
Yeah but it's terrible? It's slow, it's bloated, it's loaded with way too many configuration options and yet still doesn't have a lot of config I like from other editors. It has plenty of plugins and still manages to be missing extensions that I find important. Development with Visual Studio just doesn't feel very good compared to other environments these days.