Phoenix LiveView 1.2
phoenixframework.org
Phoenix LiveView 1.2
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#2LiveView is such a breath of fresh air, especially over the vibe coded NextJS rats nests that have become the norm (that need specialized hosting, are dog slow and require a ton of proprietary paid services bolted on like caching, background workers and even auth which Elixir and Phoenix provide out of the box).
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#3What are the pros and cons compared to ASP.Net/Blazor?
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#4What are the pros and cons compared to ASP.Net/Blazor?
The BEAM virtual machine. Its has lightweight isolated processes, message passing, supervisors, hot-ish runtime introspection, and fault containment are not libraries bolted on later. They are the substrate. not an after thought.
if you are build an app that needs the following: + many concurrent users + real-time UI + background jobs + workflows + stateful sessions + distributed events + failure isolation + “this thing should keep running for months”
You're going to want the thing built on the BEAM.
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#5What are the pros and cons compared to ASP.Net/Blazor?
The BEAM virtual machine. Its has lightweight isolated processes, message passing, supervisors, hot-ish runtime introspection, and fault containment are not libraries bolted on later. They are the substrate. not an after thought. if you are build an app that needs the following: + many concurrent users + real-time UI + background jobs + workflows + stateful sessions + distributed events + failure isolation + “this th…
But it doesn't have neither AOT nor JIT.
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BEAM virtual machine. Its has lightweight isolated processes, message passing, supervisors, hot-ish runtime introspection, and fault containment are not libraries bolted on later. They are the substrate. not an after thought. if you are build an app that needs the following: + many concurrent users + real-time UI + background jobs + workflows + stateful sessions + distributed events + failure isolation + “this th…
But it doesn't have neither AOT nor JIT.
elixir/erlang gets compiled into beam byte code. It's a vm. why does this matter..
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BEAM virtual machine. Its has lightweight isolated processes, message passing, supervisors, hot-ish runtime introspection, and fault containment are not libraries bolted on later. They are the substrate. not an after thought. if you are build an app that needs the following: + many concurrent users + real-time UI + background jobs + workflows + stateful sessions + distributed events + failure isolation + “this th…
But it doesn't have neither AOT nor JIT.
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BEAM virtual machine. Its has lightweight isolated processes, message passing, supervisors, hot-ish runtime introspection, and fault containment are not libraries bolted on later. They are the substrate. not an after thought. if you are build an app that needs the following: + many concurrent users + real-time UI + background jobs + workflows + stateful sessions + distributed events + failure isolation + “this th…
But it doesn't have neither AOT nor JIT.
I believe BEAM bytecode is now JIT-ed.
EDIT: It is, since OTP 24 was released in 2021:
https://www.erlang.org/downloads/24
> The BeamAsm JIT-compiler has been added to Erlang/OTP and will give a significant performance boost for many applications. The JIT-compiler is enabled by default on most x86 64-bit platforms that have a C++ compiler that can compile C++17.
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#9What are the pros and cons compared to ASP.Net/Blazor?
TLDR; LiveView is web only.
There have been efforts to make LiveView native, but it’s extremely difficult to do so, and thus far (to my knowledge) all have failed.
I was thinking about this the other day because carsandbids (Doug DeMuro’s car auction site) uses Blazor (at least as far as I can tell). And I think that’s one of its biggest advantages of Blazor—- is that it is capable of producing native apps and web apps while LiveView is resolutely not. And that’s because Microsoft can pay for it (or at least sponsor huge amounts of supporting infrastructure).
And FWIW— that’s an extremely difficult problem to solve. It requires an enormous amount of funding, both a huge team capable of both understanding Android and iOS SDKs and capital to employ folks on pure engineering challenges (hence why MS or Meta can). End users don’t care if it’s made with LiveView, Blazor, React, Java, SwiftUI, et. al. And, the list of companies that can facilitate that long term is extremely small.
There’s also the issue of OTP being non-trivial to implement or meaningfully transpile into another language/runtime. Erlang, BEAM, and OTP were made together for each other in a very peculiar and specific way, for a specific set of problems, and if it wasn’t a necessity that they were developed together it would be a dead language, runtime, and platform (and for the record it’s absolutely not).
Re: Phoenix LiveView 1.2
#10What are the pros and cons compared to ASP.Net/Blazor?
TLDR; LiveView is web only. There have been efforts to make LiveView native, but it’s extremely difficult to do so, and thus far (to my knowledge) all have failed. I was thinking about this the other day because carsandbids (Doug DeMuro’s car auction site) uses Blazor (at least as far as I can tell). And I think that’s one of its biggest advantages of Blazor—- is that it is capable of producing native apps and web ap…
Why not just build mobile apps in their native language (Swift etc)? Anyways, end users absolutely notice and care - cross platform mobile apps are all hot garbage without exception.