|
|
I still prefer this one[^]. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
Finished.
Built. Deployed. Configured. Hand over to be done tomorrow by someone else.
For me it's the weekend and I may have to go stick my head in the sea in the morning. Somewhere close to 80 hours this week and it feels really good to get it out of the door.
Gin, this is Tonic. Tonic, meet Gin. Now, you two can help me out...
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
An open plea to TPTB at Microsoft:
Today I read a hilarious, and scarily on-point article courtesy of the CodeProject Daily News, about the chaos that is today's state of client-side web development.
As I read it a realization hit me: we need .NET for the browser. With Mono, Roslyn, .NET Core, etc., all coming into their own, there is at this point no longer any good technological or business-related reason why all web browsers, on any platform, cannot be made to run C# code scripts on the client-side, powered by .NET. Sure, there have been efforts to do this before, Silverlight for example. But I'm not talking about just making a browser-hosted shell that is running compiled applications. I'm talking about using C# as a client-side script, powered by .NET Core and Roslyn, to forever replace the hell that is JavaScript and the upteen-zillion libraries and other variants that are built on it.
Just imagine how much life would improve for everyone if we could use the same language for both client and server side coding. How much more stability there would be if .NET were the standard for all client-side programming rather than having a new flavor of the month come out every, well, month. As I read that article I realized that so many of the shortcomings of JavaScript that all these libraries are meant to address would all be moot if .NET and C# were the client-side standard.
I understand why this hasn't happened before. .NET was until recently seen as a proprietary Microsoft-only framework. But that's clearly changing. Google, Apple, and Mozilla would just as easily be able to integrate a .NET-based scripting system into their browsers as Microsoft could. There are no patent or royalty issues. Everything that would be needed is open source. Someone just needs to lead the charge.
Microsoft lost the browser wars, but that doesn't mean it can't still revolutionize the way web development is done. Heck, even if it only worked on IE and Edge, in the beginning, it would be so attractive that I'd even consider accepting the limitation that my application required those browsers to run. In any event, someone has to be first. Please, for the sake of our sanity - bring C# and .NET to the browser!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, right... this clasic xkcd[^] comes to mind 
--
"My software never has bugs. It just develops random features."
|
|
|
|
|
I see no problem with the number of different frameworks we can use in the client side... The problem is with those idiots, like the one call himself a 'front-end engineer' in the article... Those who spread the idea of choosing framework based on its popularity (like it was a new shoe from Nike) and not on the needs-vs-capabilities...
As for the JavaScript hell - it depends on one's knowledge... You can easily avoid the worst parts and do the things right...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
You double posted this. Please delete the other one. You must've hit some client-side javascript-hell bug... LMAO.
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
I did indeed! My apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
You have a good point. Here's another idea:
One of us needs to grab a time machine and go back in time to the mid 1990's. Invent a technology called "Java Applets" that runs state-of-the-art object-oriented code in the browser. Once everyone realizes how awesome it is, crude hackish Javascript frameworks will never have the chance to rise and turn web development into a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
I've done that...The problem that it can't stand the journey back to our time...Wrecked on it's way...
But I have a better idea...Port the .NET source from GitHub to JavaScript!!!
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
If I do this, will I also be required to go hunt down Sarah Connor?
|
|
|
|
|
Umm, there is such a technology, created by Microsoft, actually created by Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of C#. It is called TypeScript[^].
Google ditched their Dart language in favor of Typescript when setting the default for Angular 2. Speaks volumes about the quality of Typescript.
Edit: BTW the article you are referencing is typical for the React crowd, which indeed needs to put together a bunch of libraries in order to start developing. Angular 2 is a monolithic framework pretty much everything included, so it doesn't have those problems.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
But TypeScript isn't C#... Does it even use .NET?
|
|
|
|
|
It is as close as it can get. It is included as a first class language in Visual Studio. It doesn't use the .NET Framework libraries of course since it compiles to JavaScript. Nobody will redesign their browsers to ditch HTML5 Javascript and CSS and switch to WPF. Not even Microsoft.
You can even now create WPF apps for browser, however let me tell you a secret. There is a reason why not everybody switched to WPF by now. It is not that good.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
How can you create Wpf apps for a browser?
Disagree strongly about Wpf not being good - at least on the desktop (non browser) side it is the pinnacle. IMHO of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ohh ok. I thought you were referring to some recent development.
Anyway .net/c# and Wpf are not one and the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Way to sluggish for the desktop and too limited in its environment. WinForms is mature, WPF might never reach that point.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Not sluggish compared to Java client apps; if you use Visual Studio (since 2010) then you're using WPF.
|
|
|
|
|
No, we're not
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
WPF is excellent - if difficult to learn. Also MVVM muddied the waters
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you. I read the same article and thought "This is exactly why I haven't gotten into web development".
The plethora of things to learn makes it practically impossible to really truly learn web development. How can you really learn a technology when it's constantly changing.
It's frustrating at best, impossible at worst.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Moore - Chicago wrote: someone has to be first. Please, for the sake of our sanity - bring C# and .NET to the browser
The holy grail of web development, I thought we had gotten there with Silverlight.
I posted that article to our development manager in the hope that it may shake some sense into her.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Dropping Silverlight was a huge mistake. The adoption was crazy being it wasn't cross platform.
Microsoft should reverse course here.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
