|
I don't think it is MS only, it is more the web tech itself at this time.
To much independed developments, no consensus between them, even they pray it that web dev/ "browsers" will make us independent from the platform.
Let us hope the tendence to go for "vanilla js" (even I'm not happy with js) will win in the sense that vanilla js can be a chance that no proprietary technologie will be prefered. Java itself had a similar target but failed.
Only my 2 cents...
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Modern web development is like developing applications that are packaged and distributed as Microsoft Office documents.
Can you imagine how crazy we'd think someone was if they built something like a UI framework written in VBA to allow developing rich applications in Word documents? Why is a UI framework written in JavaScript to run in Html documents any different?
|
|
|
|
|
Easy, browser engines don't have deep OS hooks like you can get through ActiveX and VBA.
But seriously, I disagree with your premise in principle.
If you've worked with Qt or WPF, you'll find that modern JS data binding/UI frameworks are not terribly different in concept. You use HTML templates and bind data and functionality called from services or factories to them declaratively. The JS can be coupled with the template in some frameworks (like Vue or React), or it might lean more towards the crappy WinForms code behind (like Angular or Backbone). In any case, you can easily have distinct business and UI layers, and in a complex enough application you'll likely also have a data layer to coordinate your models.
ES6 changed the game pretty fundamentally as well, making asynchronous promises, module imports, and polymorphism into first class JS citizens. As far as a UI binding engine goes, it's moved forwards by leaps and bounds in the last decade.
If your development experience with web tech "is like MSO VBA", you're likely doing something very, very wrong.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: the crappy excellent WinForms
FTFY
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
No, you definitely didn't.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes I did! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Let us hope the tendence to go for "vanilla js"
Love the website: Vanilla JS[^] 
Try selecting everything you need and then download the script
|
|
|
|
|
.Net Core is very good, it's basically Node.js on steroids.
However, I have never used Razor, and stay away from most of the MS web stuff, why use them when you don't need them?
I stick with straight HTML/JS/CSS because the server does a lot of things, but its main job is to deliver data to the client, whatever that client may be.
By letting the client decide how to render data, the client can be Html, mobile, C++, Electron, IoT, whatever, Razor is a major distraction, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok now you are bitching about the problem of using a key word in your code, just like TSQL keywords but different. Who would name a Model Model tcha!
Razor at least allows you to reduce JS dependency for which I am eternally grateful.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Razor at least allows you to reduce JS dependency for which I am eternally grateful.
Werd.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the majority of all these new features really aren't new; they are just layers of abstraction to keep us out of the inner workings (I dont want to confuse with "Core").
I believe a lot of it is MS to protect us from ourselves; such as Hidden-Segments, Forbidden-Paths, and Request-Filtering. While these are all great on paper; they do present their own signatures which made it very easy to identify that you were running .Net on top of IIS.
But, I learned how to disable all of this "safety-ware" and along the way through the request pipeline not only did I figure out how to remove the Hi I'm on the Net framework, using MVC 3, and all of it on IIS, but also figured out to create my own redirect module.
And then there are the ORMs. Sure we can use Entity Framework to act as a liaison to our SQL server and not have to worry nearly as much about SQL Injection. And it truly bothers me that after 20+ years that people still write out out vulnerable code with apathetic excuses why it isn't a problem. But it would be nice if some of the tutorials or popular packages (eg IdentityServer) had a choice of ADO or EF.
Now I get to play with new projects on Net Core. And more things to protect ourselves from like GPDR- great in concept but try renaming the damn cookies so we aren't advertising our platform again. The pipeline is not what it was so now we get to play with this concept of MiddleWare which seems to have so much more potential but so far has been a disappointment in the flexibility department.
Really what is WebAPI besides a preconfigured MVC system?
Damn.. this belongs in the sandbox
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
I completely understand your point I think the problem here is that Microsoft tries to build the framework and then we as Architects / Developers has to build what we want. MS is trying very had to not be prescriptive in anyway unlike what RubyOnRails did where they were very opinionated about how you should do things.
Saying this all the previous attempts by MS was really bad.
Coming from a Clipper '87 to C++, VB6 then C# Windows - I've ignored the whole Web Forms implementation completely and only started to do web stuff when MVC3 was released. Purely because of the craziness of Web Forms.
|
|
|
|
|
Razor is hot garbage; you'd be better off just using a string builder for that.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on a C# / MVC / Entity Framework / Razor / SQL Server project using SQL, Transact SQL, LINQ, JavaScript, JQuery, GIT, Gulp, & Babel. I feel the pain ... intensely.
In private life I support a half dozen WordPress sites ... people complain and denigrate PHP, but things are far simpler and I get 4 times as much done in the same time frame.
|
|
|
|
|
I hate JavaScript and how brittle the HTML/CSS/JS architecture is.
But Razor, and now Blazor, are great improvements. With Blazor, I no longer need JS, just HTML and C#.
It works for me, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
I created my personal website a few years back in straight HTML with minimal CSS and no Javascript. It worked fast and easy. I am not a dedicated follower of fashion so I kept it that way and guess what? It still works fast and easy and is still compatible with all browsers with no special cases for any of them - it even worked on Edge with no changes.
It does everything I want it to do and doesn't waste time on flashing or jiggling images or fading things in and out unnecessarily. It also has a minimal amount of large blank areas that do nothing; none actually. 
I have links to other more "active" bits, mostly experiments. In addition there are a couple of games using javaScript, jQuery and SVG I wrote for fun. However, the main page is just HTML and a litte CSS.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I find this to be true for most "all inclusive" frameworks. As long as you use them the way their designers intended they're great, but just try to modify their behavior even a tiny bit...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agree on that last part, but it may never happen. It's an arms race, if another framework adds a cool feature, the others follow.
Shiny new objects seem to win out over great tools and stability, and they love the instability because it keeps us buying in the vicious circle 
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with you...
I have been saying for many years that the ASP.NET WebForms model was the zenith of web development efficiency and ease-of-use.
True, it had its drawbacks but nothing to the extent that the quagmire of unreliable technologies that have grown up around the ASP.NET MVC paradigm have fostered on professional developers.
However, so many newer developers drank the Kool-Aid thinking that the new technologies and techniques were the way to go, though there was very little evidence to demonstrate the efficiencies of these new paradigms.
So what we have today is truly a complete mess in web development.
Had developers refused to make the move to MVC as Microsoft was encouraging them to do, Microsoft would have been forced to refine ASP.NET WebForms, which had been already doing up to a point.
To date, I have not read a single document explaining why any business organization should allow its IT group to move from WebForms to ASP.NET MVC and I have researched this area quite extensively.
So far, all I have found are reasons for developers to do so because it will make them feel more like high end technical personnel as a result of the substantial amount of complexity that has been added as a result of these newer technologies.
However, in terms of actually getting the job done, there has been no such document that has been able to show why MVC is better than WebForms beyond public relations drivel!
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've made a good deal of money using MS web dev tools/technologies over the last 20 years going from Classic ASP to ASP.Net WebForms. I did dabble in php enough to despise it. JavaScript is what it is but that's not MS's fault. 
Like it or not, the demand these days is for web dev. Just in the last few years the amount of time I spend on web projects now exceeds desktop stuff. Prior to 2015, the mix was more like 20% web projects.
At this point anyway, I'll stick to what I know and leave all those fancy frameworks/abstractions until I actually have a need for them.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking rhetorically, the concept of using "dumb client" techniques with hardware that is "smart" escapes me. The whole thing reminds me of 70's client-server; but with more stuff.
Running Windows apps on tablets, etc. that can access the internet on demand (for content) makes more sense to me; and apparently MS is doing something with Android that may / will extend that reach.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
(I posted this comment on HackerNews as well):
IMHO, publishing an article describing the existence of an OS or App flaw is possibly (I say that cautiously) a legitimate thing to do. But to not only describe the flaw in explicit detail, but to demonstrate how to exploit it, is irresponsible. What's next? A bunch of hackers thrashing about trying to make hay with this information before the hole is plugged in who-knows-how-many targets? I think more responsibility ought to be placed on those who disseminate this kind of information, in cases where it ends up causing harm of any kind.
|
|
|
|
|
Stick it in your blog or make it a comment on the article.
modified 15-Oct-19 15:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
