ASP.NET Core VS deno

> I'm hoping this is satire.

Me too. It's one thing to accept single LFs in protocols that expect CRLF, but sending single LFs is a bridge to far in my opinion. I'm really surprised most of the other replies to your comment currently seem to unironically support not complying with well-established protocol specifications under the misguided notion that it will somehow make things "simpler" or "easier" for developers.

I work on Kestrel which is an HTTP server for ASP.NET Core. Kestrel didn't support LF without a CR in HTTP/1.1 headers [until .NET 7](https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/pull/43202). Thankfully, I'm unaware of any widely used HTTP client that even supports sending HTTP/1.1 requests without CRLF header endings, but we did eventually get reports of custom clients that used only LFs to terminate headers.

I admit that we should have recognized a single LF as a line terminator instead of just CRLF from the beginning like the spec suggests, but people using just LF instead of CRLF in their custom clients certainly did not make things any easier or simpler for me as an HTTP server developer. Initially, we wanted to be as strict as possible when parsing request headers to avoid possible HTTP request smuggling attacks. I don't think allowing LF termination really allows for smuggling, but it is something we had to consider.

I do not support even adding the option to terminate HTTP/1.1 request/response headers with single LFs in HttpClient/Kestrel. That's just asking for problems because it's so uncommon. There are clients and servers out there that will reject headers with single LFs while they all support CRLF. And if HTTP/1.1 is still being used in 2050 (which seems like a safe bet), I guarantee most clients and servers will still use CRLF header endings. Having multiple ways to represent the exact same thing does not make a protocol simpler or easier.

Multiple repos make creating a list of matching packages surprisingly hard. I learned this when working on ASP.NET Core. The framework initially consisted of a couple of dozen of repos. Our build servers were constantly grinding because of what we called "build waves." A build wave was initiated by a single commit that triggered a build. When this build finished, it triggered builds in repos depending on it. This process continued until all repos were built. Not only was this process slow and fragile, but with a steady stream of commits across all the repos, producing a list of matching packages was difficult.

Only in the .NET can you build web applications, APIs, microservices, and real-time applications in one stack. Its highly customizable nature is a good choice for startups with limited budgets. Additionally, being a Microsoft product, ASP.NET Core integrates well with other Microsoft products, such as Azure Active Directory, to deliver competitive products. You can begin building applications by reading the ASP.NET docs.

UseCors middleware should be placed before UseResponseCaching due to this bug.

1. ASP.NET Core

> Just .GetAwaiter().GetResult() it.

That won’t work with various synchronization contexts, where doing this would cause a deadlock. There’s not much fun in trying to debug such issues.

And now that various libraries only provide async api, or worse an non-async version wrapping the async one with . GetAwaiter().GetResult(), you’ll be in for a treat updating your dependencies.

Async all the way is the answer, although various frameworks still don’t offer async hooks. Recently I ran into this for example trying to write an async validator in blazor, but that’s not possible and you have to work around it [1].

C# 5 introduced async/await almost 12 years ago. And we’re still not “async all the way”.

[1]: https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/40244

This approach to organizing middleware enhances code readability, maintainability, and reusability. By following this encapsulation pattern, you're adhering to best practices in ASP.NET Core development, ensuring your application remains well-organized and scalable.

🌟.NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️.NET 9 Preview 2 Discussion ➡️ASP.NET Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️ASP.NET Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 Release Notes ➡️EF Core updates in .NET 9 Preview 2 ➡️.NET Aspire preview 4 - .NET Aspire

https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/50643

Even if you look at Microsoft’s by far most popular GitHub project, they’re still only half as big as SupaBase. If you believe “the SupaBase story”, SupaBase grew and became twice as large as Microsoft in 3 years. Below is their likes over time if you’re curious, together with a couple of additional “too good to be true” Silicon Valley projects.

Deno 2 has arrived, bringing many features and improvements that have developers reconsidering their reliance on Node.js. While Deno currently holds a smaller share of the market, with 1.9% of developers using it compared to 40.8% using Node.js according to StackOverflow's 2024 survey, its advancements in TypeScript support and ECMAScript modules (ESM) showcase its potential. The community is eager to see how Deno will continue to evolve and if it can gain the traction needed to stand alongside Node.js as a viable alternative. Explore Deno 2's capabilities and assess its readiness to take center stage.

but i digress, in this post i will try to go over the points of Jamon in his thread thats talking about Bun, and how that is achieved in Deno.

JSX can become valid, standardized ECMAScript syntax.

But first we need a valid syntactic sugar transformation, which I propose here.

Then we need to implement it in things like babel[0] bun[1] and deno[2].

Then, frameworks would adopt it as an optional alternative implementation.

Eventually, it could gain widespread support and become standardized.

[0] https://github.com/sdegutis/vanillajsx.com/blob/main/site/un...

[1] https://github.com/oven-sh/bun/issues/13630

[2] https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/25312

Ha, in what I believe Ryan's first talk about Deno, he mentioned something about avoiding cute features or so, then he said Deno has URL-based imports "because they're cute". It didn't take long for someone to raise it up in 2018:

https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/195

We've come full circle :)

So, does that work now? Can we simply npm run test? Really? Well, almost. Unfortunately, Node, in comparison to other runtimes like Bun or Deno still is JavaScript only, so we have to transpile from TypeScript it to JavaScript first.

Deno

NodeJS is the dominant Javascript server runtime environment for Javascript and Typescript (sort of) projects. But over the years, we have seen several attempts to build alternative runtime environments such as Deno and Bun, today’s subject, among others.

https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues is the ideal place -- we try to triage all incoming issues, the more specific the repro the easier it is to address but we will take a look at everything that comes in.