"blazor is far better than any other frontend framework"

ok:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions...

ah yes, very nice and easy to grok syntax

clowns

🤡

@ostream if you compare blazor to php, you either have no clue about what blazor is, what php is, or both.

@ostream yeah, it’s not. Having said that, I don’t like it either.

@ostream

> Are C# tards trying to reinvent php again?

exactly what I said when I first looked at the syntax 😂

@fullstackcircus "but its not PHP!!!!" they shout

bro, i've seen so many frameworks now it's not even funny. they're all the same in their own retarded ways

It's a lambda function. Nothing unusual. Stackoverflow applies incorrect syntax highlighting and it's still very clear.

This may bring on some kind of hate, but I use CefSharp for literally everything I can.

Why is there such a compulsion to create new UI languages when you can use HTML/css/js? This has been a solved problem for a generation.

no matter how shitty blazor might (or might not) be, it's infinitely superior to every frontend framework that's based on javascript for the sole reason of not being based on javascript.

as for frontend frameworks that are not based on javascript... seriously, i don't know of any.

so it is categorically the best by lack of competition.

@tosensei What makes js so bad that it is worth using a proprietary Microsoft technology that almost no one knows?

@cuddlyogre check your facts before spouting garbage. blazor is FOSS.

also: have you ever _used_ javascript? and a programming language to compare it to?

@tosensei I use it daily to do everything I need. When confined the domain it is good in, namely web and UI logic, it is as good as any other language.

Blazor is a technology spearheaded by Microsoft and dictated by its whims. Whether or not it's open source is irrelevant.

I'm also not interested in learning XAML and I hate Winforms. In part because I already know a very good interface language and in part because I'm not going to shackle myself to any more Microsoft products.

Compared to js/html/css it is very new and relatively unknown. Which translates to it having a whole host of problems that aren't even known yet that have been fixed on the web for a generation.

I just wish Firefox would develop an embedded framework as portable as CEF so I didn't have to be shackled to Google.

@cuddlyogre dude. blazor is basically html/js/css. only with c# instead of js. and c# is _very very very_ well known.

and the many, many, many problems js has are well-known for years now, but instead of getting fixed, stockholm-syndrome took over and people built a cult around it.

@tosensei Being like something isn't being that thing.

Can an otherwise competent frontend developer that only knows js, html, and css work on a Blazor project using only the knowledge and tools they have?

I suspect not. I suspect they would need at least a work day to get a dev environment set up and another couple work days to even understand where to start. Once they get going, they will have to reimplement the wheel in a hundred places because Blazor hasn't been around long enough to need to solve the kinds of problems that the web has long solved. Then they will have to spend weeks fixing bugs related to resolving so many solved problems.

With web technologies, I can have this same developer work on my UI and they can use the tools and knowledge they already have to quickly deliver a functioning product. There are a million stable and battle tested libraries we can use to implement any kind of UI we wish. And if we have problems, the problem has been solved somewhere.

@cuddlyogre "Can an otherwise competent frontend developer that only knows js, html, and css work on a Blazor project using only the knowledge and tools they have?" - dumb argument, because it invalidates itself by just looking at it from the other side: "can an otherwise competent blazor frontend eveloper work on a js project?" ;)

and your follow-up questions are just a common thing to do if you're not a single-technology over-specialised codemonkey.

and getting into a new project (that's above a trivial level of complexity) will _always_ take some time to familiarise yourself. regardless of technology.

and again: js has been around for long enough, but hasn't solved a single problem. on the contrary, it embraced them.

by the way: the template engine blazor is built on, razor, has been around for quite some while and is more battle-tested than any js-framework i know of ;)

@tosensei >can an otherwise competent blazor frontend eveloper work on a js project?

I am far, far, far more likely to have a frontend web developer available than I am a Blazor developer, whatever that is. If I don't have one available to me, I can trivially find one. And they wouldn't have to spend weeks getting the hang of yet another EEE Microsoft technology.

As for suggesting that dedicated frontend web developers are codemonkeys, I don't know what to say to that.

Maybe we should seperate Razor aka the templating engine from Blazor aka the framework in the discussion.

Razor goes back to ASP.NET if I'm not mistaken....

I hate Windows and MS shit passionately, but at least get your facts straight.

Plus: Vue isn't reallly JS. Same like Typescript isn't JS.

Vue needs transpiling as far as I know.

Like any templating engine does.

What PHP did was another thing: It just mingled HTML and PHP code together.

Templating engines - anyone remembers Smarty? - came later. Cause noone liked the gangbang bukkake of frontend / backend code.

... But then some much time later some JS frameworks found it totally cool to do the same shit again by just throwing CSS, HTML, JS / transpiled shit into a blender and called it revolutionary.

Yeah. As revolutionary as ASP.net Razor. Which is I think ...15 years old? I think at least 10. ASP.net was around 2005 I think.

I suggest everyone here to look at things that are designed and things that just happen. The way PHP generates HTML isn't designed. It's literally just text concatenation. While we're at it, PHP itself isn't designed, it's a hodgepodge CGI script that accidentally became the standard of the web. PHP doesn't respect the structure of HTML, it doesn't interact with the concepts of HTML.

Similarly, most JS APIs aren't designed, they were the simplest to implement in the 9 days allotted to building the language, or the most obvious mapping from existing Java concepts. It doesn't have integers and it needs them so desperately that ARM introduced an instruction to convert floats to ints the JS way because it was too expensive to calculate indices.

How React, Vue and Razor generate HTML is designed. All of these technologies were introduced to solve a problem that had many existing solutions of varying quality, and decisions could be made based on real case studies.

1/2

Blazor is a frontier technology, it exists because no one knew what languages would be used with WASM so Microsoft saw a market. I'm 100% sure that it gets a ton of stuff wrong, but component-driven UI was at that point a very old problem so that's unlikely to suffer from teething problems.

This is not to say that a design can't be bad, but a design and a fringe experiment that stuck around have completely different kinds of problems, and later iterations on an idea don't automatically inherit the problems of the experiment.

That being said, if you can't read lambda functions in a hierarchy the problem isn't with the system.

@cuddlyogre "As for suggesting that dedicated frontend web developers are codemonkeys, I don't know what to say to that."

nah. i suggested that dedicated _anything_-developers that only know _one_ very limited tech stack are codemonkeys. which tech stach this is doesn't matter.

also: all your arguments just boil down to "JS is best because JS has been what we've always done"... well, medical expert said this about bloodletting once.

@tosensei Not everyone has the time, temperament, or need to learn multiple programming languages.

Most frontend people I have met are designers that excel at design but are not good at programming outside of that. Nor would I ask them to be. In doing so, they would very likely lose what makes them a good designer.

To ask a designer to focus their efforts on learning an essentially unknown and proprietary tech stack that they will never see anywhere else outside of this one project is a great way to lose a designer or not be able to find help at all.

And your argument boils down to you don't like web technologies for some reason and are willing to sacrifice the viability of otherwise very viable projects at that alter.

There's a reason some things are "how we've always done it". Sometimes those things have proven their worth. Or sometimes the alternatives are not really alternatives at all.

@cuddlyogre designers should design, developers should code.
Giving designers JS to work with because it’s supposedly easy is a recipe for disaster.
If a designer wants to be a developer, then the designer should learn the right tools and languages without compromises.

Btw, JS is not a programming language. I know that everyone calls it a programming language today but it’s still just a script language which is being abused by millions of devs.

@Lensflare

>designers should design, developers should code.

This isn't a perfect world where that is always going to be possible.

>If a designer wants to be a developer, then the designer should learn the right tools and languages without compromises

I take it you know assembly, C, C++, Fortran, punchcards, and how to interpret raw http packets?

Even if it were a perfect world, why would I ignore a perfectly good resource who knows how to do exactly what I need them to do so that I can anchor myself to yet another substandard Microsoft product?

Your disdain for web technologies is self defeating.

@cuddlyogre

> I take it you know assembly, C, C++, Fortran, punchcards, and how to interpret raw http packets?

What? No, I don’t and I didn’t imply that you need to.
The right tool is whatever is the best for the job and not what is the most commonly used or what is well suited for people who don’t know what they are doing (like non-dev designers).

> Even if it were a perfect world, why would I ignore a perfectly good resource who knows how to do exactly what I need them to do so that I can anchor myself to yet another substandard Microsoft product?

That’s reasonable. I just don’t know how it relates to what I said.
If your designer knows how to code well, that’s fine.

@cuddlyogre "Not everyone has the time, temperament, or need to learn multiple programming languages."

agree.

only the good developers.

are you also saying that "learning how to use a saw" is all a carpenter needs? after all, who cares about nails and screws, about chisels and joinery, and about "how wood works in general" ;)

AFAIK most modern frameworks have the same general ingredients: template, style, and logic.

However whacky the templating and styling with Blazor may or may not be, the fact that you can handle front-end logic without having to touch JavaScript or typescript is an absolute win in my book. I'm with @tosensei on this one.