-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 20
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Upgrade to .NET 5 #6
Comments
@JohanHeyvaert you're more than welcome to open a PR to address updating the target framework. I've left this project largely unmaintained due to inactivity on it, but I think it would be great to keep it somewhat up-to-date. I don't see myself contributing much here in the foreseeable future, but will peek on PRs and issues every now and again. |
Currently I don't have any experience with Blazor. But I would be interested to learn it IF its performance is decent. So I wanted to compare this Realworld implementation with the other ones (React, Angular, Vue, Solid). |
As for performance, if you can swallow the fact that initial page loads are quite hefty and rely on web assembly loading, then the tradeoff is primarily (I'd argue) more about the DX. Newer versions of .NET have decreased the initial load size from the looks of it, though has a quite a ways to go to catch the frameworks already in place. I, personally, probably wouldn't use Blazor WASM for production, though there are reasons for doing so especially if you're team is 100% .NET and do not prefer JS-based frontend frameworks. If you already have apps in production, then it's probably not worth it to migrate to Blazor anytime soon if initial load is a concern and you tend to use a lot of web APIs that haven't reached parity with their web assembly counter parts (that will naturally impact Blazor's performance). I would like someone to still take the reigns on this and get the project up to .NET 7. |
With the latest release candidate of .NET 5, I'd like to update the project from .NET Core 3.1 and tackle the move to C# 9 at the same time to utilize some of the new features (a.k.a. record types).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: