4 ms·

Microsoft’s history with UI frameworks has been challenging, with experiences from WPF, Silverlight, and UWP leaving some developers, including myself, hesitant

by cebert 3y ago

Microsoft’s history with UI frameworks has been challenging, with experiences from WPF, Silverlight, and UWP leaving some developers, including myself, hesitant. It would be great to see consistent and long-term support in this area before committing to their UI solutions again. I won’t be burnt again.

rqtwteye 3y ago
Same here
stetrain 3y ago
This is a direct descendent of ASP.NET MVC which is like 14 years old. Blazor adds live updating of components via websocket using the Blazor Server opiton, or hosts the whole MVC web app in the browser if you are doing Blazor WASM. To me it feels like a direct continuation of the last decade of ASP.NET development.
- JustLurking2022 3y ago
  I've been using ASP.NET MVC since the preview and wouldn't touch this. It actually feels more like the old ASPX web forms where the components were inscrutable black boxes. Ultimately, I think it's actually better to have separation between UI, client-side state persistence and server-side frameworks.
  - oaiey 3y ago
    Just that they are no longer black boxes (except you build them). And the model is basically the same as for all of the other SPA frameworks).
  - lizardking 3y ago
    It does feel like web forms, complete with the life cycle methods (component instead of page/control in this case). I built an internal application for a client and it felt like a fusion of react and web forms.
oaiey 3y ago
HTML will not be given up. Blazor unifies right now every ASP.NET Core UI tech (SSR, SPA, server-SPA, hybrid), so this is soon a all or nothing topic. WebAssembly is a compilation target which stays. .NET went in the last years wherever it was needed. Because the market wanted it. I have hope. And I have been with you on the journey.