r/Blazor • u/megadonkeyx • Feb 10 '22 • Gold 1

Two weeks of blazor.. I'm sold

Have been doing development since the 90s and generally have always found the mix of js, html, css and c# to be laborious.

Even react which I find to be the least annoying js framework is painful. Most of the time I would just go back to html, css and jquery to get stuff done quicker.

But blazor, wow, just doing server side blazor for two weeks and I'm making stuff with such little faff. Everything works so painlessly.

Using radzen ui components but not their ide, this is seriously impressive stuff.

Has anyone tested how well server side blazor scales when using azure signalr service? . Now I have used this there's no going back.

119 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

26

u/propostor Feb 11 '22

Blazor becoming the next big thing. Hell fucking yes.

I'm working on a new internal web app at work and casually suggested MVC/jQuery was an oddly old choice for a new project. We are now writing it in Blazor and everything is just wonderful.

-5

u/godlikeplayer2 Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 12 '22

Blazor becoming the next big thing. Hell fucking yes.

meh, if they don't get these huge bundle sizes for wasm blazor in check it will stay relatively niche.

edit: rofl at the downvotes without any counterarguments. Says a lot about the blazor and c# community.

11

u/propostor Feb 11 '22

Nah. Internet these days is so fast that your website can be 10mb and nobody cares. Do you notice Facebook being upwards of 20mb?

The only important factor now is development time, and Blazor websites are the quickest development turnaround of any available framework at the moment, by far.

Also, Blazor isn't even large. 2mb or less, last I checked. I don't know what you're on about, frankly.

-1

u/godlikeplayer2 Feb 11 '22

Do you notice Facebook being upwards of 20mb?

uhm no? it downloads like 1,3mb of javascript for me. Including all that tracking bs and other stuff.

Internet these days is so fast that your website can be 10mb and nobody cares

mobile users? hello?

The only important factor now is development time, and Blazor websites are the quickest development turnaround of any available framework at the moment, by far.

for people who know their js/ts and the established frameworks are most likely still faster. Using blazor for anything outside of throwing a prebuilt component library together is a pain in the ass and requires js skills anyways.

Also, Blazor isn't even large. 2mb or less, last I checked. I don't know what you're on about, frankly.

just for the base runtime. Compare that to vue with is like 17kb gzipped. Also, wasm is not as compressible as js and c# doesnt generate the most size efficient wasm binaries.

an example page of blazor wasm downloads like 10+mb https://blazorclientside.computercodeblue.com/

the same page in vue only needs 41kb js https://vue3-realworld-example-app-mutoe.vercel.app/#/

performance is also pretty bad (for now) https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.html

6

u/propostor Feb 11 '22

Um... I'm on my laptop now and a quick inspection of network transfer tells me - via "Empty cache and hard reload":

Facebook: 5Mb

My own personal React website: 2.6MB

My own personal Blazor website: 704kb

And this is the base data transfer. Not extra resources and assets that are counted separately.

If you think Vue is better because it's 17kb, you are a long way from doing useful web development. The people who pay for this shit are not interested in the difference between 17kb and 700kb, that's absolute peanuts for any web connection in the modern world.

The only thing people care about is how long it takes to finish the work. I have worked professionally on all frameworks - MVC, jQuery, Knockout, React, Angular, Blazor - and Blazor is the most productive I have ever worked on, by far.

-2

u/godlikeplayer2 Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22

Facebook: 5Mb

first 20, now 5... the fb spa is around an mb of initial downlaod gzipped. The rest are images and other assets that get lazy-loaded.

My own personal React website: 2.6MB

i guess you have misconfigured something then. 2,6MB is huge for a spa. use compression and a bundler to treeshake and split different views into different chunks and not load everything on the initial page load.

this statement alone shows that you simply don't know what you are doing...

If you think Vue is better because it's 17kb, you are a long way from doing useful web development. The people who pay for this shit are not interested in the difference between 17kb and 700kb, that's absolute peanuts for any web connection in the modern world.

you are funny. Reading your comments I know that you never shipped a frontend to the web.

Accessibility and performance are huge success factors. Amazon found that every 100ms in added page load time cost them 1% in sales.

Also, google takes page load times into account for its ranking as well.

Sure, if you only build some internal apps that just a few people use you don't need to know anything of that, but competing on the web is something entirely different.

that's absolute peanuts for any web connection in the modern world.

again, there isn't 5g everywhere and mobile users a huge part of almost any userbase.

. I have worked professionally on all frameworks - MVC, jQuery, Knockout, React, Angular, Blazor - and Blazor is the most productive I have ever worked on, by far.

sure buddy.

3

u/propostor Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 12 '22

  1. We aren't all trying to rewrite Amazon

  2. Amazon looks like it was written in 1998 and never updated and is slow as fuck so I don't know why you use that as an example.

  3. The only place I see people talk about download size of SPAs is in boring dick-swinging matches on the internet where they try to look like they're a web development ace because "this framework is smaller than that framework". Seriously no one cares, I already told you development time is more important than a few kilobytes difference in initial download. Server latency is usually a bigger factor than how many kB your website is.

  4. 5G, 4G, H+, 3G, whatever. Again, no professional developer halts production and goes into emergency mode because their users in the mountains with poor signal might have trouble connecting. WTF point are you trying to make regarding mobile phones, I don't get it.

  5. If you're going to accuse me of never releasing any website then I'll just do the same and accuse you of only releasing toy projects that nobody is ever going to use, because if your main result is the proud ability to look in the mirror and say to yourself, "Yeah, that website was SMALL", you really aren't developing anything of value. In all my years nobody anywhere at any level has ever made framework size the defining issue. Conversely, we're now writing a Blazor project at work and everyone is amazed at how fast development is. And so I go back to my original point - development time is important. The only area of optimisation I've ever seen focused on is server speed and database query efficiency, because that can get ugly pretty fast if you don't know what you're doing (unless you're only writing a toy website where the only thing worth caring about is how many kB it is on the client side).

  6. Yes buddy.

0

u/godlikeplayer2 Feb 12 '22 edited Feb 12 '22

We aren't all trying to rewrite Amazon

what about the countless e-shops out there?

Amazon looks like it was written in 1998 and never updated and is slow as fuck so I don't know why you use that as an example.

doesn't change anything I wrote or their findings regarding the loss in sales due to longer page loads

The only place I see people talk about download size of SPAs is in boring dick-swinging matches on the internet where they try to look like they're a web development ace because "this framework is smaller than that framework". Seriously no one cares, I already told you development time is more important than a few kilobytes difference in initial download. Server latency is usually a bigger factor than how many kB your website is.

ROFL, you are so out of touch. /r/beta for example is full of complaints about the not so optimal Reddit spa. just the top comment in the top post: https://www.reddit.com/r/beta/comments/sq6rb7/comment/hwjly2o/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

If you're going to accuse me of never releasing any website then I'll just do the same and accuse you of only releasing toy projects that nobody is ever going to use, because if your main result is the proud ability to look in the mirror and say to yourself, "Yeah, that website was SMALL",

don't worry, I helped to ship SPA's and SSR sites for several major European governments and big corporations. UX and accessibility are very important there.

The whole "I don't care about UX" attitude is so naive and something you only hear from some juniors or people working for startups.

people like you kinda make me hate web assembly in general since it allows to push out garbage that makes the web worse. Next week the one-trick java ponies gonna ship the whole JVM to render a UI because they can't learn the right tools.

2

u/propostor Feb 12 '22

UX is a whole lot more than 100ms page load times.

lol.

1

u/godlikeplayer2 Feb 12 '22

yeah, performance is still an integral part of UX.