6 ms·

I'm using Blazor (C#) WebAssembly and I'm really wishing it could do DOM manipulation. My favorite tool for that is Dart, so I'm working on marrying C# and Dart

I'm using Blazor (C#) WebAssembly and I'm really wishing it could do DOM manipulation. My favorite tool for that is Dart, so I'm working on marrying C# and Dart for my client solutions.

traviswt 4y ago
Genuine question: is the goal to get something that is not achievable with JS/TS, or is the goal to simply avoid JS/TS?
- labrador 4y ago
  I really dislike JavaScript for a number of reasons. Dart gives me more distance from it than TypeScript. Of course, I can't avoid it, but I don't have to deal with many annoyances such as which 'this' is this? Should I put 'this' into a var called 'self' to be safe? That's just one example of how JavaScript and I don't get along. I understand some people have brains that think this way, but mine doesn't
  - kkdaemas 4y ago
    Surely it's easier to stick to JavaScript The Good Parts than to introduce a whole new layer in the form of Blazor?
    - labrador 4y ago
      Blazor is not equal to JavaScript. Blazor is Microsoft's answer to React and Flutter. So far of the three, I like Blazor, but not the server version that uses SignalR to communicate with the client because it locks you in. Blazor Webassembly is awesome, but just needs a good DOM manipulation library. With Blazor Wasm on the client, I can use anything on the back end.
  - atwood22 4y ago
    What do you like about Dart over TypeScript? The type system in TypeScript is far superior to Dart's. Other than that, the languages are more-or-less the same.
    - labrador 4y ago
      Actually, I'm taking another look at TypeScript today. I liked it well enough when I last investigated it in 2016, but the code I wrote then was just a veneer over jQuery. I'm sure things have improved dramatically, which I am about to find out. Frankly, a Turing complete type system [1] seems like over-kill to me and a complication I don't need. Still, Dart had everything I wanted in a front end language in 2013. I think JS devs were short sighted to reject it out of hand. It's a shame it never caught on by itself and not as a just a Flutter language. I read that Google is using it in Fuchsia so there is still a chance Dart will be big in the future! [1] TypeScript and Turing Completeness: https://itnext.io/typescript-and-turing-completeness-ba8ded8f3de3 https://itnext.io/typescript-and-turing-completeness-ba8ded8...
      - atwood22 4y ago
        I highly recommend TypeScript. I don't really like the JS runtime, but, purely from a language point of view, TS is my favorite. Some cool features: 1) Type unions interface A { a: string; } interface B { b: string; } type C = A | B; const c: C = { a: 'a' }; 2) Type assertions if ('a' in c) { /* compiler knows c is of type A here */ } function isA(c: A): c is A { return 'a' in C } // compiler knows c is A if this returns true 3) Nice helper types interface A { ... } ReadOnly<A> // Like A, but all properties are read-only Partial<A> // Like A, but all properties are optional Omit<A, 'someProp'> // Like A, but without 'someProp'
        labrador 4y ago
        Interesting. I'll learn more today as I rewrite one of my Dart components into TypeScript. But I also dislike Node and Npm so I'll try Deno first.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        TBH, TypeScript's type system really impressed me. It's the strongest type system of any language I regularly use (I haven't had time to unpack Rust yet, and I learned enough Haskell to decide Haskell didn't help me solve problems I had).
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    > I really dislike JavaScript for a number of reasons. Might I suggest being less sensitive/that your reasons are overblown?
    - 202206241203 4y ago
      Yes, let's keep using JavaScript for all eternity now. It's COBOL of this century.
    - labrador 4y ago
      I don't like liver and horse radish either. Should I eat that because a lot of people like it?
  - FlorianRappl 4y ago
    The comment reads like you used JavaScript 10 years ago. For instance, just use arrow functions and this remains untouched.
    - labrador 4y ago
      I know but that's just bizarre. One function has it's own this and another doesn't so if my arrow function gets big and I want to make it a regular function I may have to rewrite it. Ugh. Edit: I'm thinking of cognitive load too. I like to eliminate load I don't need. Keeping track of this is not something I want to do with my life https://drpicox.medium.com/reducing-programmers-cognitive-overload-e14df3b73432 https://drpicox.medium.com/reducing-programmers-cognitive-ov...
      - chmod775 4y ago
        > so if my arrow function gets big and I want to make it a regular function I may have to rewrite it. There's absolutely no reason to make an arrow function a regular function just because it goes past a certain number of lines. It really seems like you should become more familiar before forming an opinion. There's valid criticism to be made, but those aren't it.
        labrador 4y ago
        I sometimes refactor code for purely aesthetic reasons. To each his own. http://www.synergeticapplications.com/ergonomics.htm http://www.synergeticapplications.com/ergonomics.htm By the way, I feel like I'm at a bar and you're negging me
    - arcosdev 4y ago
      or, better yet, stop using this
vbezhenar 4y ago
What's wrong with JS bindings? Surely DOM manipulation is slow enough for WASM/JS overhead not being noticeable.
- labrador 4y ago
  You still need to go through a port with Blazor, but you can minimize those calls for the most part. DOM manipulation was slow as recently as a few years ago, but improvements to Blink have made it blazingly fast. I agree with Svelte that we no longer need a virtual DOM https://svelte.dev/blog/virtual-dom-is-pure-overhead https://svelte.dev/blog/virtual-dom-is-pure-overhead Edit: I didn't answer your question. There's nothing wrong with JS bindings. Both Blazor and Dart use them, which could get awkward going from Blazor -> Dart (as JS) -> JavaScript lib. I'm considering TypeScript again because no port is needed to call JS libs.
asabla 4y ago
For someone about to go knees deep into Blazor very soon. Do you have any gotchas which isn't really mentioned on MS documentation site? primarily related to performance, since it will be one of my main concerns.
- worble 4y ago
  If one of your main concerns is performance, then all I can say is don't use Blazor. WASM will never be able to compete with regular JS so long as it has to go through an interop layer, plus it has to send down and parse an entire interpreter before it can even start looking at your actual UI and business logic. Server Side has to wait for a server response for every single action you take, and any small drops can make the entire thing sluggish, or even buggy. That's not to say it isn't cool and can't work for some projects where say, development speed is more important, but performant it just aint.
- labrador 4y ago
  If you're talking site load time you'd have to be careful because netdot is compiled as wasm, which doesn't leave a lot of room below the standard site size. It's hard to tell because even ordinary sites now are huge. I need to do some testing.
lmm 4y ago
What's C# giving you that Dart isn't, OOI? My impression is they're fairly similar languages. (Does Dart not have a WebAssembly backend?)
- labrador 4y ago
  Blazor is using C# to build web pages, which isn't new, but using C# on the client with a webassembly version of .NET. It works well enough, but is limited to simple things like onClick="SomeCSharpFunction" and can not do things like getting elements by id or class. That's were Dart shines. Most will use either JavaScript or TypeScript, but I like Dart so I want to see how it is to combine Blazor Webassembly with Dart. It would be even more interesting if there were a Dart.NET
  - lmm 4y ago
    My point is: why C#, why Blazor? What's that doing that you couldn't just do in Dart itself?
kbelder 4y ago
I was struck by how reactionary some of the responses to this comment are. Many people seemed to feel obliged to firmly question your preferences. Kind of odd, I don't normally notice that as much here on HN.
- traviswt 4y ago
  Well personally I wasn't questioning the preference itself, I was curious about the purpose of the preference since I've seen people avoid JS/TS both because they don't like it and because it struggles to accomplish certain things. I was simply curious which it was (if either).
- labrador 4y ago
  I expected it because over the years any Dart or Microsoft positive statements I've made have received pushback. Some people can't let go what Microsoft did 20 years ago and assume they are still evil (with GitHub Copilot for example.) Others who are JavaScript programmers can't let go that a Google exec said at the outset that Dart was meant to replace JavaScript. They have fought it over the years. I almost felt like I was trolling by combining the two, but I'm actually using Dart and Blazor to see how they can work together because Blazor Wasm doesn't do DOM manipulation and Dart does it in such a easy to use fashion that the marriage feels natural to me. I try not to attack back and have a bit of a sense of humor about it, but it does feel like suppression of thought on HN

I'm using Blazor (C#) WebAssembly and I'm really wishing it could do DOM manipulation. My favorite tool for that is Dart, so I'm working on marrying C# and Dart for my client solutions.

traviswt 4y ago

Genuine question: is the goal to get something that is not achievable with JS/TS, or is the goal to simply avoid JS/TS?

labrador 4y ago
I really dislike JavaScript for a number of reasons. Dart gives me more distance from it than TypeScript. Of course, I can't avoid it, but I don't have to deal with many annoyances such as which 'this' is this? Should I put 'this' into a var called 'self' to be safe? That's just one example of how JavaScript and I don't get along. I understand some people have brains that think this way, but mine doesn't
- kkdaemas 4y ago
  Surely it's easier to stick to JavaScript The Good Parts than to introduce a whole new layer in the form of Blazor?
  - labrador 4y ago
    Blazor is not equal to JavaScript. Blazor is Microsoft's answer to React and Flutter. So far of the three, I like Blazor, but not the server version that uses SignalR to communicate with the client because it locks you in. Blazor Webassembly is awesome, but just needs a good DOM manipulation library. With Blazor Wasm on the client, I can use anything on the back end.
- atwood22 4y ago
  What do you like about Dart over TypeScript? The type system in TypeScript is far superior to Dart's. Other than that, the languages are more-or-less the same.
  - labrador 4y ago
    Actually, I'm taking another look at TypeScript today. I liked it well enough when I last investigated it in 2016, but the code I wrote then was just a veneer over jQuery. I'm sure things have improved dramatically, which I am about to find out. Frankly, a Turing complete type system [1] seems like over-kill to me and a complication I don't need. Still, Dart had everything I wanted in a front end language in 2013. I think JS devs were short sighted to reject it out of hand. It's a shame it never caught on by itself and not as a just a Flutter language. I read that Google is using it in Fuchsia so there is still a chance Dart will be big in the future! [1] TypeScript and Turing Completeness: https://itnext.io/typescript-and-turing-completeness-ba8ded8f3de3 https://itnext.io/typescript-and-turing-completeness-ba8ded8...
    - atwood22 4y ago
      I highly recommend TypeScript. I don't really like the JS runtime, but, purely from a language point of view, TS is my favorite. Some cool features: 1) Type unions interface A { a: string; } interface B { b: string; } type C = A | B; const c: C = { a: 'a' }; 2) Type assertions if ('a' in c) { /* compiler knows c is of type A here */ } function isA(c: A): c is A { return 'a' in C } // compiler knows c is A if this returns true 3) Nice helper types interface A { ... } ReadOnly<A> // Like A, but all properties are read-only Partial<A> // Like A, but all properties are optional Omit<A, 'someProp'> // Like A, but without 'someProp'
      - labrador 4y ago
        Interesting. I'll learn more today as I rewrite one of my Dart components into TypeScript. But I also dislike Node and Npm so I'll try Deno first.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        TBH, TypeScript's type system really impressed me. It's the strongest type system of any language I regularly use (I haven't had time to unpack Rust yet, and I learned enough Haskell to decide Haskell didn't help me solve problems I had).
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > I really dislike JavaScript for a number of reasons. Might I suggest being less sensitive/that your reasons are overblown?
  - 202206241203 4y ago
    Yes, let's keep using JavaScript for all eternity now. It's COBOL of this century.
  - labrador 4y ago
    I don't like liver and horse radish either. Should I eat that because a lot of people like it?
- FlorianRappl 4y ago
  The comment reads like you used JavaScript 10 years ago. For instance, just use arrow functions and this remains untouched.
  - labrador 4y ago
    I know but that's just bizarre. One function has it's own this and another doesn't so if my arrow function gets big and I want to make it a regular function I may have to rewrite it. Ugh. Edit: I'm thinking of cognitive load too. I like to eliminate load I don't need. Keeping track of this is not something I want to do with my life https://drpicox.medium.com/reducing-programmers-cognitive-overload-e14df3b73432 https://drpicox.medium.com/reducing-programmers-cognitive-ov...
    - chmod775 4y ago
      > so if my arrow function gets big and I want to make it a regular function I may have to rewrite it. There's absolutely no reason to make an arrow function a regular function just because it goes past a certain number of lines. It really seems like you should become more familiar before forming an opinion. There's valid criticism to be made, but those aren't it.
      - labrador 4y ago
        I sometimes refactor code for purely aesthetic reasons. To each his own. http://www.synergeticapplications.com/ergonomics.htm http://www.synergeticapplications.com/ergonomics.htm By the way, I feel like I'm at a bar and you're negging me
  - arcosdev 4y ago
    or, better yet, stop using this

vbezhenar 4y ago

What's wrong with JS bindings? Surely DOM manipulation is slow enough for WASM/JS overhead not being noticeable.

labrador 4y ago
You still need to go through a port with Blazor, but you can minimize those calls for the most part. DOM manipulation was slow as recently as a few years ago, but improvements to Blink have made it blazingly fast. I agree with Svelte that we no longer need a virtual DOM https://svelte.dev/blog/virtual-dom-is-pure-overhead https://svelte.dev/blog/virtual-dom-is-pure-overhead Edit: I didn't answer your question. There's nothing wrong with JS bindings. Both Blazor and Dart use them, which could get awkward going from Blazor -> Dart (as JS) -> JavaScript lib. I'm considering TypeScript again because no port is needed to call JS libs.

asabla 4y ago

For someone about to go knees deep into Blazor very soon. Do you have any gotchas which isn't really mentioned on MS documentation site? primarily related to performance, since it will be one of my main concerns.

worble 4y ago
If one of your main concerns is performance, then all I can say is don't use Blazor. WASM will never be able to compete with regular JS so long as it has to go through an interop layer, plus it has to send down and parse an entire interpreter before it can even start looking at your actual UI and business logic. Server Side has to wait for a server response for every single action you take, and any small drops can make the entire thing sluggish, or even buggy. That's not to say it isn't cool and can't work for some projects where say, development speed is more important, but performant it just aint.
labrador 4y ago
If you're talking site load time you'd have to be careful because netdot is compiled as wasm, which doesn't leave a lot of room below the standard site size. It's hard to tell because even ordinary sites now are huge. I need to do some testing.

lmm 4y ago

What's C# giving you that Dart isn't, OOI? My impression is they're fairly similar languages. (Does Dart not have a WebAssembly backend?)

labrador 4y ago
Blazor is using C# to build web pages, which isn't new, but using C# on the client with a webassembly version of .NET. It works well enough, but is limited to simple things like onClick="SomeCSharpFunction" and can not do things like getting elements by id or class. That's were Dart shines. Most will use either JavaScript or TypeScript, but I like Dart so I want to see how it is to combine Blazor Webassembly with Dart. It would be even more interesting if there were a Dart.NET
- lmm 4y ago
  My point is: why C#, why Blazor? What's that doing that you couldn't just do in Dart itself?

kbelder 4y ago

I was struck by how reactionary some of the responses to this comment are. Many people seemed to feel obliged to firmly question your preferences. Kind of odd, I don't normally notice that as much here on HN.

traviswt 4y ago
Well personally I wasn't questioning the preference itself, I was curious about the purpose of the preference since I've seen people avoid JS/TS both because they don't like it and because it struggles to accomplish certain things. I was simply curious which it was (if either).
labrador 4y ago
I expected it because over the years any Dart or Microsoft positive statements I've made have received pushback. Some people can't let go what Microsoft did 20 years ago and assume they are still evil (with GitHub Copilot for example.) Others who are JavaScript programmers can't let go that a Google exec said at the outset that Dart was meant to replace JavaScript. They have fought it over the years. I almost felt like I was trolling by combining the two, but I'm actually using Dart and Blazor to see how they can work together because Blazor Wasm doesn't do DOM manipulation and Dart does it in such a easy to use fashion that the marriage feels natural to me. I try not to attack back and have a bit of a sense of humor about it, but it does feel like suppression of thought on HN