3 ms·

I was going to reflexively downvote this but it doesn't quite rise to the level of bad faith that I look for before I downvote. But, I'd ask you to recheck you

I was going to reflexively downvote this but it doesn't quite rise to the level of bad faith that I look for before I downvote. But, I'd ask you to recheck your impressions every couple of years, especially if a technology seems to be gaining popularity as opposed to dying. Stubborn and irrational corporate loyalty and manufactured hype are not the only reasons a technology stays alive, quality does play a role sometimes. .NET these days, especially with core, has a focus on power, performance, portability, and a sleek user experience. C# is a widely loved language that has a plethora of good stable tooling around it, and an intelligently evolving featureset that enables terse, expressive, functional-if-you-want-it coding. I think, like Kotlin, it's very well suited to writing "functional core, imperative shell" apps. You can also use it to write bloated J2EE-style lasagna-code, but no one's forcing you to do that. As for Blazor itself, it's similar to React/Vue/etc., but in C#. Writing complex frontend apps is hard even with TS and the big frameworks, and I can't think of why a new entrant with a statically typed language (with types at runtime!) that's still web-native would be a bad thing. As for startup time, hopefully they'll improve that, but you wouldn't use Blazor for a simple app anyway.

userbinator 8y ago
But, I'd ask you to recheck your impressions every couple of years My most recent experience with a .NET application was within a day, and my impression has not changed since the beginning. (Although hardware has gotten faster...) Essentially every time I've had to use an annoyingly sluggish app that looks like a native one, I later discovered it was written in .NET . Despite all the claims of performance I have not once encountered an app that reflected those. It's never been "wow, .NET is so fast now?" but always "why is this so slow? ...oh, it's .NET." You can also use it to write bloated J2EE-style lasagna-code, but no one's forcing you to do that. That's the same non-argument the Java folks give. In theory it's possible to do better, but the language and culture naturally tends toward overengineering monstrosities because it is so much easier to do so when the language makes complexity easy to create. ...which brings me to the point I'm trying to make: your users don't care what fancy language or framework or whatever else you used. They care about the speed and (implicitly, since it affects speed) resource usage of your application, and that's what they'll notice.

userbinator 8y ago

But, I'd ask you to recheck your impressions every couple of years My most recent experience with a .NET application was within a day, and my impression has not changed since the beginning. (Although hardware has gotten faster...) Essentially every time I've had to use an annoyingly sluggish app that looks like a native one, I later discovered it was written in .NET . Despite all the claims of performance I have not once encountered an app that reflected those. It's never been "wow, .NET is so fast now?" but always "why is this so slow? ...oh, it's .NET." You can also use it to write bloated J2EE-style lasagna-code, but no one's forcing you to do that. That's the same non-argument the Java folks give. In theory it's possible to do better, but the language and culture naturally tends toward overengineering monstrosities because it is so much easier to do so when the language makes complexity easy to create. ...which brings me to the point I'm trying to make: your users don't care what fancy language or framework or whatever else you used. They care about the speed and (implicitly, since it affects speed) resource usage of your application, and that's what they'll notice.