| ▲ | Varelion 2 days ago |
| If only they could fix the ecosystem's stability; I feel like anything written with C#'s staple packages becomes outdated considerably faster than any other options. |
|
| ▲ | homebrewer 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| TBH aspnet core has been the most stable web framework I've worked in my life. If you have good test coverage, upgrading projects between major versions often takes minutes — because nothing, or almost nothing, gets broken. Some things might get deprecated, but the old way keeps working for years, you can chip away at it slowly over the next year or two. You still need to make sure that everything works, but that's what tests are for, and this has to be checked regardless of your tech stack. Of course, they had a massive backwards compat break when moving from the regular aspnet to aspnet core, here's hoping nothing like that happens in the next 10-15 years.. |
| |
| ▲ | bob1029 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I've hedged the stability risk by using the narrowest possible slice of the framework. With enough experience you can accomplish pretty much everything using just the minimal API and router. HttpContext is the heart of AspNetCore. If you can get your hands on instances of it within the appropriate application context, you can do anything you need to. Everything else is dependent upon this. The chances that HttpContext can be screwed with are very, very low. There are billions of dollars riding on the fact that this type & API remains stable for the next decade+. | | |
| ▲ | jtbaker 2 days ago | parent [-] | | do you still use the framework's DI pattern with this approach? I have an older school .NET app I work on (still Core) sometimes and haven't gotten much experience with the minimal APIs, although it looks attractive as someone that prefers lower level routers. | | |
| ▲ | bob1029 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I use the AddService() method to inject a things on occasion but its not used heavily. For lightweight apps I'll spin up things like a shared SQLiteConnection and inject it for all resources to use. The DI pattern is simple & clean at this scale. In my top-level program I define my routes like: app.Map("/", Home.HandleRequest);
app.Map("/login", Login.HandleRequest);
app.Map("/account/new", NewAccount.HandleRequest);
app.Map("/{owner}", OwnerHome.HandleRequest);
And then I have HandleRequest implementations like: static async Task HandleRequest(HttpContext context, SQLiteConnection sql)
static async Task HandleRequest(HttpContext context, SQLiteConnection sql, string owner)
etc...
The actual HandleRequest() method can do anything, including concerns like directly accepting and handling web socket connections. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tracker1 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I saw a lot of breaks between .Net Core 1, 2 and 3... since 3 it's been much more steady though. | |
| ▲ | Varelion 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Or hope that key figures, or significant portions of the team don't get laid off. I don't trust Google or Microsoft products for this reason alone. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I haven't written C# professionally since the early 2010s but back then the language had a big problem in that the old Container classes were not compatible with the Container<X> classes that were added when they added generics to C#. This created an ugly split in the ecosystem because if you were using Container<X> you could not pass it to an old API that expected a Container. Java on the other hand had an implementation of generics that made Container<X> just a Container so you could mix your old containers with generic containers. Now Java's approach used type erasure and had some limitations, but the C# incompatibility made me suffer every day, that's the cultural difference between Java and a lot of other languages. It's funny because when I am coding Java and thinking just about Java I really enjoy the type system and rarely feel myself limited by type erasure and when I do I can unerase types easily by - statically subclassing GenericType<X> to GenericType<ConcreteClass> - dynamically by adding a type argument to the constructor - mangling names (say you're writing out stubs to generate code to call a library, you can't use polymorphism to differentiate between Expression<Result> someMethod(Expression<Integer> x)
and Expression<Result> someMethod(Expression<Double> x)
since after erasure the signature is the same so you just gotta grit your teeth and mangle the method names)but whenever I spend some time coding hard in a language that doesn't erase generic parameters I come back and I am not in my comfortable Java groove and it hurts. |
| |
| ▲ | Rohansi 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This hasn't been an issue for a long time because nobody uses the non-generic collections anymore. That doesn't help you with your reliance on type erasure though. If you're up for it you should give it another try. Your example of subclassing GenericType<X> and GenericType<ConcreteClass> may be supported with covariance and contravariance in generics [1]. It's probably not very well known among C# developers (vs. basic generics) but it can make some use cases a lot easier. [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/generics/c... | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, I had a chance a few months back when I was the backup programmer in a game development hackathon and my team was developing with Unity which uses C#. It was fun. People talk about tradeoffs with GC, the worst one is that I've seen an occasional game that has a terrible GC pause, for instance Dome Keeper based on Godot which also runs in .NET. I used play a lot of PhyreEngine (also .NET) games on the Playstation Vita and never noticed GC pauses but I think those games did a gc on every frame instead of letting the garbage pile up. | | |
| ▲ | Rohansi 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Whether you're programming with a GC or without one it all comes down to profiling and optimization (when required). Using a GC means you need to think about memory allocations and reduce them (when required) because they factor into how long the GC will need to run. C# is a great language for this because it provides a lot of options for removing GC memory allocations from your code entirely (struct types, Span<T>, etc). Not all GCs are created equally either. Unity, for example, is based on an ancient version of Mono and so it uses the Boehm GC which is significantly slower than the one used by .NET. Godot probably has two GCs because it primarily runs GDScript (their custom language) and only supports using .NET in a separate engine build. They'll all have their own performance characteristics that the developer will need to adjust for. | |
| ▲ | uyjulian 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | PhyreEngine doesn't use .NET, and it is written in C++ (with optional Lua for scripting). You might be thinking of PlayStation Mobile, which does use .NET for scripting. |
| |
| ▲ | feoren 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Covariance and contravarience is very useful, but it's quite annoying that it can only be used with interfaces and not classes/structs. I write lots of little monoid-like data wrappers like Named<T>, and I have to either go through the hassle of dealing with interfaces for something that shouldn't need it, or I have to abandon covariance. The .NET maintainers seem to think that nobody wants covariance on classes, but it would be very helpful to me. |
| |
| ▲ | pohuing a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This created an ugly split in the ecosystem because if you were using Container<X> you could not pass it to an old API that expected a Container. Correct me if I'm wrong but allowing this would mean the called api might insert objects wholly unrelated to X. This would break every assumption you make about the container's contents. Why would this ever be allowed or wanted? | |
| ▲ | mrsmrtss 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | And yet, Java is trying desperately to fix its generics now with project Valhalla (although value types are their main goal), but it's almost impossible to do without major breaking changes. Without reified generics there's major performance cost when primitive (or value) types are used as generic parameters, because of boxing. Also, .NET has had generics since 2005 when .NET Framework 2.0 was released. |
|
|
| ▲ | CyanLite2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| lol, whut? Microsoft created the ".NET Standard" for this. Literally anything that targets .NET Standard 1.0 should work from circa 2001 through modern day 2025. You still get the (perf) benefits up the runtime upgrade which is what the blog post is about. |
| |
| ▲ | Rohansi 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | .NET Standard is more for maintaining interoperability between .NET Framework and .NET (Core). At this point only (very) legacy applications should be on Framework. Everything else isn't, so they shouldn't use. NET Standard as a target because it limits the new features they can use. | | |
| ▲ | elyseum 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I support your statement for custom dev applications.
Unfortunately some large enterprise applications like D365 still require the Framework :(. |
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | giancarlostoro 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can you provide more examples? I've taken a Win32 application from .NET 3.5, converted it to a .NET Console Application (it was a server with a GUI) to run on .NET 8 with minimal friction, a lot of it wound up me just importing .NET Framework packages anew from NuGet. What are you looking for out of .NET? The staple packages don't go away as often as in languages like NodeJS |
|
| ▲ | 9cb14c1ec0 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you are not on the bleeding edge of whatever new framework Microsoft is promoting today, the ecosystem is incredibly stable. |
|
| ▲ | porridgeraisin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yep. A breaking change that makes my code a gajillion times faster is still always just a dirty breaking change that I'll hate. |
| |
| ▲ | CyanLite2 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The breaking changes are very well documented and are esoteric in nature. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/compatibility/... Scott Hanselman has a very short blog on how 20 year old code is upgraded to the latest .NET in just a few short minutes: https://www.hanselman.com/blog/upgrading-a-20-year-old-unive... | | |
| ▲ | AtNightWeCode 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Bs, basically, the docs about upgrading between frameworks and what works with what is actually pretty current and often disappears after some years. Especially anything about edge cases. Several upgrades also demands that you do the upgrade version by version. It is tedious work if you don't have a full understanding of the app. Nuget has also become a complete dependency hell. Today you often have to point out what to use to get your legacy apps to build with newer .NET versions. You can't just go with latest. | | |
| ▲ | licon4812 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I just upgraded a .NET Framework 3.5 Windows application to .NET 9, with little to no issues. I even decided to remake it as a WinUI app instead of leaving it in WinForms. The entire process took me less than 2 weeks, of just casual development | |
| ▲ | GreymanTheGrey 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Several upgrades also demands that you do the upgrade version by version" This seems unlikely. Do you have a source? | | |
| ▲ | AtNightWeCode 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I upgraded hundreds of projects. The docs with breaking changes are by version. For smaller solutions you can create a new solution and pull in the code and try to fix everything that breaks. There is also an upgrade tool that can work for smaller projects. But the fastest way for normal sized solutions is to update version by version up to the closest LTS. Then you can go LTS to LTS. .NET does also not only break in code, it breaks in behavior so you really want to test those changes in isolation. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | qingcharles 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | They almost never make any breaking changes these days. And when they do it's because of something that is absolutely unavoidable. I've never hit one. |
|
