5 ms·
ASP.NET is pretty bare bones, all by itself. It's pretty much just a simple pipeline of request handlers with DI support (which is also optional). MVC, routin
by aggieben 6y ago
ASP.NET is pretty bare bones, all by itself. It's pretty much just a simple pipeline of request handlers with DI support (which is also optional). MVC, routing, Razor - all unnecessary if you don't want to use them.
I agree that the ASP.NET documentation is lacking in F# code samples (although the example you picked is a bad one as Razor doesn't support F#, and so naturally wouldn't have F# code samples). You might find that Giraffe is a more comfortable framework, as it's essentially an F#-ified shim on top of ASP.NET.
- kinjba11 6y agoA lot of this thread feels like Microsoft's terrible naming having not surprising negative consequences. "ASP.NET" can mean so many things to so many people. To me it's usually a synonym to the full-fat MVC with controllers, DI, everything. This is reinforced by most of the dotnet templates and documentation, which make it feel like if you ask for a banana you're given a gorilla and the entire forest whether you want it or not. In comparison, if you look at Go you'll see the "net/http" package. It's the HTTP server. Extendable. Built in - not something to download from NuGet. Only does HTTP - not reinventing its own DI, configuration management, IIS, etc.