CoreCLR VS ASP.NET Core

Has anyone tested this project on NetBSD.

https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/4504/files

Any reason why it would not work.

Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].

Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.

* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)

Sort of, some topic are not relevant anymore, consider this - https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/tree/master/Documentation/botr

Fairly advanced stuff but the Book Of The Runtime (BOTR) it's a invaluable resource

After that you can check out the The Book of the Runtime, which is the CoreCLR version of the previous book.

Technically the restrictions already exist, just as a part of the development experience.

- .NET Hot Reload is only implemented on Windows. It requires support in the .NET runtime, which is technically possible to implement, but the team has not gotten around to implementing it for years. This doesn't have to do with the issue around MS removing the "dotnet watch" command, it's for the "Edit and Continue" feature in IDEs.[1][2]

- MS was considering deprecating Omnisharp, the open-source language server that implements C# support for VS Code, and replacing it with a closed-source version. Since the announcement, commits to omnisharp-vscode have dropped off significantly. The lack of Omnisharp would mean there would be no real open-source C# development environment for Linux anymore, since MonoDevelop was abandoned a few years ago. [3]

[1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-31366/EditContinu...

[2] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/23685

[3] https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276

The next step is to realize everything you think you know about .NET is just an abstraction. Next step is to learn about what is going on behind all that syntax sugar and facades. 1st step might be https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/tree/master/Documentation/botr then go down the rabbit hole and have fun

Book of the Runtime

- https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/pulls

I am an “AI skeptic”, so clearly I am biased here. What I am seeing in the repositories is, that Copilot hasn’t made any substantial contributions so far. The PRs, that went through? They often contain very, very detailed feedback, up to the point line by line replacements have been suggested.

The same engineers, that went up stage at “Microsoft Build 2025” to tell how amazing Copilot is and how it made them a 100x developer? They are not using Copilot in any of their PRs.

You said it’s a religion. I’d say it’s a cult. Whatever it is, outside the distortion bubble, this whole thing looks pretty bad to me.

Libuv describes itself as a multi-platform support library with a focus on asynchronous I/O. It is widely used in many web servers (e.g., Kestrel) and runtimes such as Node.js and Python (via uvloop). As of Zig 0.14.0, there is no native async I/O, so you must work directly with threads or create your own async API using OS primitives like epoll or kqueue. In many cases, you would likely choose a cross-platform library rather than implementing your own async API. That’s where using libuv, libevent, or libxev (written in Zig) becomes useful.

UserStore.cs

Swashbuckle.AspNetCore is being removed in .NET9 (Is Swashbuckle is deprecated ?) “The ASP.NET Core team began shipping web API templates with a dependency on Swashbuckle in the .NET 5 timeframe. The decision allowed the team to provide built-in support for OpenAPI, a language-agnostic, platform-neutral representation of web-based APIs that contains everything needed to discover and interact with HTTP-based service endpoints. You may be more familiar with the name “Swagger” that refers to a set of tools for working with OpenAPI documents. The information in the OpenAPI document enables scenarios like client code generation, stubbing server code, creating documentation and dynamically producing a web-based UI to interactively test the API. It also is heavily used in artificial intelligence applications to provide prompts that describe the API for use by generative AI. Swashbuckle is a great project, and we appreciate the time and effort its owner and community contributors have put into it. The project is no longer actively maintained by its community owner. Issues have not been addressed or resolved, and there is not an official release for .NET 8. The ASP.NET Core team will provide a solution for this in the .NET 9 release. The plan is to remove the dependency on Swashbuckle.AspnetCore from the web API template and extend the capabilities introduced with Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi to provide OpenAPI document generation.” For more details on the deprecation of Swashbuckle.AspNetCore, refer to this GitHub issue:

Recently, I experimented with PersistentComponentState, hoping to transfer state between the pre-rendering phase and the final rendering phase. My goal was to resolve the double loading issue while still benefiting from pre-rendering. However, I discovered that pre-rendering—even in .NET 9 (SDK 9.0.101)—behaves inconsistently. There also seems to be an unnecessary “page-loading” phase that wastes CPU and memory resources without achieving anything meaningful. I reported this issue on the .NET GitHub repository: Issue #59569.

GenHTTP has a strong focus on developer experience - from a new project created by a template to a fully functional Docker service in a couple of minutes. Projects are fully described in source code, lowering the learning curve compared to ASP.NET and making it a good choice for hobby projects.

As mentioned above, there is a built-in RateLimitingMiddleware in ASP.NET Core. Its basic usage is extensively covered in Microsoft Learn and community blogs, so allow me to skip it. There is not much inside: the midlleware basically does two things:

Note that Blazor has serious deployment problems since ~2021 [0] due to MS picking some idiotic packaging format defaults.

I.e. Let's make it look like a Windows executable! And go ahead and name it .dll! I'm sure no default firewall settings will have an issue with that.

So any wide Blazor app deployment also requires overriding the default packaging and adding obfuscation.

Supposedly that's experimentally fixed in NET 8... [1]

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/31048

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/36978#issuecomme... https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/80807

My mid- and early senior developer years were intense. Due to a mix of reorgs and personal interests, I found myself on a new team every year or so. As a result, I had to learn new codebases in quick succession. They included .NET System.Xml, OData, Entity Framework, Entity Framework Designer, ASP.Net SignalR, ASP.Net Core, and the Alexa mobile app, and most of them were over one hundred thousand lines.

At Microsoft, I worked on a few high-profile open-source projects like Entity Framework or ASP.Net Core. As thousands of developers used our products, we received a decent number of bug reports. Unfortunately, we often couldn't understand what issue was being reported, how to reproduce it, and the expected behavior. Following up on these issues was painful. The back-and-forth took weeks. The "bugs" slipped from release to release while we were waiting for the details we requested. Eventually, we closed most of these bugs without resolution as it was hard to prioritize them over other issues we could immediately investigate and fix.