Posts by SoftWiz

Blazor: Full stack C# and Microsoft's pitch for ASP.NET Web Form diehards

Re: Is anyone really going to use this?

Yes Kotlin is a great and fresh language/platform too with great possibilities, even though I don't think they already quite offer wasm support, but I'm sure if that isn't yet the case, it will be soon.

I think that what one can do with Kotlin and the .NET ecosystem will be virtually identical, although the implementation might differ here or there.

But as you said: interesting and exciting times ahead!

For sure, for people like myself who have quite some experience in mainly the back-end with an interest in front-end, but not wanting to invest time and effort time to get to grips with the newest front-end fad every couple of years, this is interesting news.

Finally I can focus on the one technology I'm proficient with and do front-end (hopefully) without needing to reorient myself every x years.

Re: Is anyone really going to use this?

The mentioned big players were, in a not so distant past, small players as well, you know.

And they all share a similar approach to building web content, which is by leveraging html, js and css. Most of these 'combinations' are used in the real world by one of a dozen existing frameworks, like the ones you mentioned, which are the most popular ones.

WebAssembly on the other hand is a totally new approach in providing content for web browsers and offers additional possibilities, like an entire 'native' DOOM game running in wasm, in the browser, and this is at near-native speed, not like the JS-based rewrite that exists.

Microsoft is not at all the only one providing wasm-support for their developers (in the form of Blazor).

I know the Java-world already has various projects in different stages of completion to offer exactly the same to their community, and I'm sure that Rust and other environments have too.

And the reason they do this is that now, for most business applications, most businesses have the option to hire 'full-stack' engineers, which need to know C#/Java/... and need to know one of the popular and ever-changing web (javascript) frameworks. The other option they have is to hire additional front-end developers which should only be bothered by these front-end technologies.

In practice this means a not always flawless or easy integration of front- and back-ends, and mostly separate codebases with developers not really knowing the others' codebase (or used technology).

When having developers that can do both back- and front-end in the same language and technology stack, and they can easily share their datatypes, things can be easier and faster, and be inside one and the same codebase.

Currently, existing proven JS-libraries can be used from wasm/blazor, but the idea is that most of most popular JS-libraries will be offered as a blazor/wasm library so there really is little reason to needing to dive in JS. An effort has already started to transfer such libraries and components to Blazor and if I'm not mistaken, quite a lot already are available.

Sure, there still will be web-applications that might be better developed with existing web frameworks, but majority of business-oriented apps will benefit from wasm.

On top of all this, when using Blazor, eventually in conjunction with the UNO-platform or Xamarin, you can provide web applications, (native) mobile apps, electron apps and winforms/desktop apps all from one and the same code.

And since most business are really going for a multi-level presence, I'm pretty sure this will surely be a hit.

A comparison with Silverlight really is not relevant here, since it was a MS-only technology, mainly supported by IE. Wasm is a technology already supported by ALL popular web browsers and is an open standard.

How much open source is too much when it's in Microsoft's clutches? Eclipse Foundation boss sounds note of alarm

Re: VSCodium?

Yeah wonderfull. So I wonder if they base their fixes and features on gut feeling or will they just keep syncing to the MS repo's that have these improvements based on the ANONYMOUS tracking they're doing?

BTW, if you only knew how many, if not nearly all, applications do some kind of tracking to learn about how the applications are used so they can improve it. It's called UX strategy or something.....ahum. anyway, because MS is doing that now it must have become evil, right?

Well, when you're done celebrating the new millennium you're in, please open your eyes to reality...

Windows code-signing tweaks sure to irritate software developers

Re: CA Security Council...

Well, MS for one already has this service for quite a while in their Azure offering.

But I'm sure Amazon and others will have these too.

They're verified and certified by external independent companies and really following all security-related best-practices.

Why are they proposing this? well, a lot of malware and what have you now can be unsigned, or signed with a certificate you got from who knows where, without the need to identify yourself.

Now, in order to obtain such a code-signing certificate/service, you'll be obliged to identify yourself.

For using the service in Azure, you'll need to go though a MS partner, for obtaining the 'dongle', which shouldn't be from MS by the way, but any code-signing certificate from any trusted issuer can be used, like GlobalSign or whatever!

This already is done for signing certificates used for signing CRITICAL documents, and for signing PDF's with the Adobe AATL certificate, for long, having HW dongles was the only way.

Again, because you needed to identify yourself and physically obtain the dongle from the issuer at their premises.

So, if they deemed it necessary for signing documents, shouldn't it be wise to use it for signing software, which might have access to all personal data of a user, all bank accounts, too?

And indeed, then they can start blocking unsigned software, or at least indicate that that software is not signed with a trusted certificate, so it's the end-users responsability.

This is probably the only way to get rid of malicious software, distributed as safe to install sw, and without any means of identifying who was the creator/distributor of this sw.