Hi Scott! I'm sorry to say I'm not familiar with you or your work, but I'm going to remedy that quickly. I see you do work with ASP.NET, which is highly relevant to my current work. I work in an organization that has been using ASP.NET since 1.1 - mostly for small one-page web forms, but occasionally for larger database apps. We're up to using .NET 4.5 now, but I'm struggling to figure out where we go next. MVC and .NET Core seem like WAY too much overhead for the small projects we do here. I took a brief look at Razor Pages, but even that looks like more overhead/bloat than we currently have. What would you recommend for someone writing very small .NET apps and where do you see the future of .NET headed?
Scott is a web developer who has been blogging at https://hanselman.com for over a decade. He works in Open Source on ASP.NET and the Azure Cloud for Microsoft out of his home office in Portland,
With respect, not sure where you got "overhead and bloat" but I'm happy to chat about it.
.NET and MVC are VERY lightweight. Like 5-10x less going on than with previous versions of .NET. HttpRequests went from 30k overhead to like 7k. Razor Pages has many fewer moving parts and concepts.
I'd start with Razor pages or MVC (which Razor is built directly on) for basic apps. You can scaffold out most CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) apps in 30 min. Maria and I just did a course on this: mva.microsoft.com/en-US/training-c...
Appreciate the guidance, Scott. Trying to make sense of .NET vs. Core vs. MVC vs. Razor has been a bit daunting. Perhaps overhead and bloat weren't the right words to use. I didn't mean it in terms of server load so much as the amount of code I'd have to write as a developer. The couple of examples I've seen for MVC and Razor involved a lot more code than I'd write to do something similar in .NET 4. But like I said, I only took a brief look recently so I'm still gathering information and learning. I'm glad to hear MVC/Razor is very lightweight and I will definitely check out your course.
Scott is a web developer who has been blogging at https://hanselman.com for over a decade. He works in Open Source on ASP.NET and the Azure Cloud for Microsoft out of his home office in Portland,
Hi Scott! I'm sorry to say I'm not familiar with you or your work, but I'm going to remedy that quickly. I see you do work with ASP.NET, which is highly relevant to my current work. I work in an organization that has been using ASP.NET since 1.1 - mostly for small one-page web forms, but occasionally for larger database apps. We're up to using .NET 4.5 now, but I'm struggling to figure out where we go next. MVC and .NET Core seem like WAY too much overhead for the small projects we do here. I took a brief look at Razor Pages, but even that looks like more overhead/bloat than we currently have. What would you recommend for someone writing very small .NET apps and where do you see the future of .NET headed?
With respect, not sure where you got "overhead and bloat" but I'm happy to chat about it.
.NET and MVC are VERY lightweight. Like 5-10x less going on than with previous versions of .NET. HttpRequests went from 30k overhead to like 7k. Razor Pages has many fewer moving parts and concepts.
I'd start with Razor pages or MVC (which Razor is built directly on) for basic apps. You can scaffold out most CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) apps in 30 min. Maria and I just did a course on this: mva.microsoft.com/en-US/training-c...
Appreciate the guidance, Scott. Trying to make sense of .NET vs. Core vs. MVC vs. Razor has been a bit daunting. Perhaps overhead and bloat weren't the right words to use. I didn't mean it in terms of server load so much as the amount of code I'd have to write as a developer. The couple of examples I've seen for MVC and Razor involved a lot more code than I'd write to do something similar in .NET 4. But like I said, I only took a brief look recently so I'm still gathering information and learning. I'm glad to hear MVC/Razor is very lightweight and I will definitely check out your course.
Cool. Do reach out if I can help explain and support.