The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
I think I replied to something similar a bit back, but for the record...
Blazor's big advantage is that you get to use the same language on client and server and it's a real language, not a toy language. Those two things in and of themselves should make everything else obsolete for the most part, IMO. And of course they are getting ever closer to a practical WASM based client, which makes it even more appealing.
It's pretty easy to use and to create new components. It is HTML/CSS based ultimately, which sucks, but that is an equally distinct suckage quotient for pretty much all its competitors so it's a wash in terms of comparisons.
It's pretty straightforward to dynamically generate content, though it has limitations in terms of component inheritance wrt to component containment, which kind of sucks and they apparently don't care enough about that to do anything about it since they silently closed my issue last week on the matter.
It has a quite flexible embedded code/data in HTML scheme that makes it pretty easy to just embed references to component members and have them become part of the HTML, or to easily generate HTML content in place with code snippets. And/or you can have 'code behind' for much more complex processing.
However, because it's HTML based but it's sort of 'double buffered' in that they maintain their own hierarchy and go from that to HTML, changes can't really automatically show up. You have to force a refresh in lots of cases to get that to happen, and it's easy to miss places where you need to do that.
Ghoti is an artificial word used to illustrate irregularities in English spelling. It is a respelling of the word fish: i.e., it is supposed to be pronounced /ˈfɪʃ/. It is made of these phonemes: gh, pronounced /f/ as in tough /tʌf/;
That argument only holds if the ads have an effect - i.e. they make me spend money on some service or product. If I am presented for a hundred ads in, say, Thai, it is just a waste of bits and pixels - it makes no sense to me. It is just garbage. So I want it off my screen.
Same with US companies selling US products/services on the US market: Even though I can read the English words, I would never have any reason to react to the ad. So it is garbage, in a similar way.
You could say "But the news site gets paid for throwing a pile of garbage on your doorstep" - it is none of their business that it is of no intererst to you". Nevertheless, all that garbage annoys me. I can't even consider it product/market "information"; it is not avilable to me.
My reactions to "relevant" ads are quite different from all those irrelvant ads. Proposals like "People who bought that product you are looking at, also bought so-and-so" may actually be fine.
Also, I think paying for access to news articles is fine. But I see references to at least fifty different news sites a day, maybe a hundred over a week. I cannot pay a hundred subscriptions! But if there was some sort of syndication, maintaining a single account for me, and whenever I read an article on one of the syndicated news sites, a small amount (half a USD? one USD for in-depth articles?) would be charged to this account. But I see not traces of such a mechanism coming up.
But I ask myself: Why don't we have browsers that pretend (to the web site) that they show the ads, but simply "forget" to display them on the screen? It would certainly be technically possible to return exactly the same response to the web site, whether the ad was displayed or not.