rust-web-framework-comparison VS ASP.NET Core

First is the size. Writing a server-side and client-side program is possible with Rust, and the resulting WASM package will be small enough. At the same time, Microsoft Blazor converts C# code to WASM, but the client delivery has to include the reduced .NET runtime, taking several megabytes for a script. The same is true for GoLang, even with an attempt to reduce the runtime delivery in TinyGo WASM. Developers want to work with their favorite languages, whether it is Java, Kotlin, Dart, C#, F#, Swift, Ruby, Python, C, C++, GoLang, or Rust. These languages produce groups of runtimes. For example, JVM and .NET have many common parts, Ruby and Python are dynamically interpreted at runtime, and all mentioned depend on automatic garbage collection. For smaller WASM packages, browser vendors can include extended runtime implementations, for example, by delivering a general garbage collector as part of WASM. Garbage collection support by WASM is currently in progress: WASM GC, .NET WASM Notes.

I'm currently reading up on Leptos and what looks like its major contender, Dioxus [1] in planning for next project. (acknowledging here that Yew [2] is maybe the OG Rust full stack / frontend framework, but I'm not considering it at this time)

Here's a nice comparison of the Rust frontend frameworks: https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework-comparison#fron...

Note that Leptos is interesting because it _does not use a virtual DOM_, unlike Yew and Dioxus which are React-like.

We already write our backend in Rust; why not use it for the whole stack and stop worrying about e.g. the Typescript object falling out of sync with the API struct?

[1] https://github.com/DioxusLabs/dioxus/

I want to push for using rust & wasm for a small experimental project at my job. I have reviewed the rust web frameworks comparison document, I'd be interested in Yew because I'm familiar with React, and I am interested in Sycamore and Leptos because they are recommended for use in Tauri and I'm personally interested in trying Tauri at some point.

Check out https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework-comparison for some options.

The web framework comparison is a good start.

This repository has some nice comparison tables for different web libraries and frameworks: https://github.com/flosse/rust-web-framework-comparison

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.

https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/10117

To achieve these objectives, we will take inspiration from ASP.NET Core Identity's PasswordHasher class. It incorporates a concept of hash versioning, allowing only the number of iterations to be modified.

yes I watched several courses, may be aim not getting clearly. but i worked with asp.net which uses http call and firebase cloud function also which uses socket connection, for socket connection its makes sense to use observable bcoz there streams of data we can observe once the connection establish ,but for http it need to be call every time.

As I'm not utilizing ASP.NET, despite its resource-intensive nature and occasional unpredictability, I prefer the cost-free option. I'm hesitant to invest in EPPlus or engage in trials, and moreover, I am more proficient with Interop. Given the limited volume of records in my department, there's a preference for utilizing tools covered by our existing license. This avoids the need for navigating through layers of approval within the chain of command and ensures compliance with our contractual agreements and Microsoft's patch management, ultimately aligning with a cost-saving mindset.