A quick check of https://github.com/aurelia/framework/commits/master shows
that it is very much alive and well and Rob is still active there.
Also, interesting to note that Aurelia does work with ASP.NET Core. True,
it isn't currently one of the 'out of the box' templates like Angular or
React but
System.Workflow was originally released in .NET 3.0/Vista timeframe (2006) –
but “RTM” designer support was added in VS 2008. It’s unfortunate that we need
to deprecate features – but very little usage and non-trivial cost to move it
to VS 2017 (due to the rewritten setup), the decision was made
Lol actually if anyone of our clients want Webforms work out of us we
always say only if we are replacing it, we don't do enhancements.
On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Stephen Price
wrote:
> On a completely unrelated note, I got a call from a recruiter who's found
> me roles in the past (there's a
I agree with you Corneliu the angular 2 syntax makes you go "what the hell
were they thinking!" especially given that angular 1 was far easier, far
more intuitive to use. But you do get used to it.
Perhaps Rob Eisenberg is doing something awesome for Microsoft and we'll
see some magic there.
If A
I must say I agree. I don't know a better alternative but working in JS
land or even TS still feels dirty. This can't be the way it will stay.
On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Greg Keogh wrote:
> Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
> and fear. I think people who
Totally agree. First Angular2 and then React almost turned me off Web dev
altogether but Aurelia gave me hope... not so sure now that Aurelia doesn't
look like is getting much love to keep it alive.
On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Corneliu I. Tusnea
wrote:
> I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I
I'm one of the lovers of Aurelia (and I know Wal also on this list uses
Aurelia).
For me Aurelia is has one of the best designs possible. Clean and easy to
use. Everything is simply obvious.
With Aurelia I never had to think "how do you do this or that". It's all
simple and natural.
DI is beautifu
Haha nice. I'm so glad I don't have to use pure javascript. Typescript is
my client language of choice.
The reality is that you can shift a fair bit of workload from the server to
the browser by utilising javascript frameworks, and at the same time get a
much more responsive, rich, snappy web app.
Reading the jargon in this short thread so far still fills me with dread
and fear. I think people who are using (and writing) JS frameworks are to
close to their subject to see the bigger picture of what's happening. From
a historical, technical and creative perspective, the whole JS ecosystem is
l
Yep I resisted for a long time and stayed with winforms lol but am now
forced to look at this stuff.
On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright wrote:
> After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
> application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assaul
After doing all the research I chose angular for my current enterprise
application. I had to choose a technology that could withstand an assault
from people who are still in a circa 2000 mindset. It's non trivial but
will do everything I need it to. There's so much to learn just to get going
on an
Yep I did notice that in the core 2.0 update. Angular 2/4 never really felt
right to me. Aurelia felt much better. I'll have to take a look at Vue now.
On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright wrote:
> Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks ago,
> only supports rea
Interestingly, dot net core 2.0, which was released a couple of weeks ago,
only supports react,react+redux and angular 2/4 in its spa templates. They
will work against pure dot net core as well as dot net framework. Both Vue
and react are view only and require a dog's breakfast of technologies to
m
Thanks Tony. I will have a look. I tried React and can't believe anyone
would ever bother with it - absolutely atrocious compared to Aurelia!
On Thursday, 24 August 2017, Tony Wright wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> It doesn't appear to have achieved the take up necessary to make it in the
> enterprise. Als
On a completely unrelated note, I got a call from a recruiter who's found me
roles in the past (there's a couple of good ones - recruiters, that is) for a
Silverlight role.
I laughed and said, really? Someone is looking for a Silverlight developer?!
He replied yes. To remove it.
I just about los
No, I think you will find it should be able to open. Our workflow projects are
very old, and they open just fine. We did upgrade them from .Net 3.5 to 4.0
last year, but this was literally just a matter of changing the framework
target, there was no other change required. Looking at the referenc
I think I found the answer here:
*Thank you for your feedback! The .NET 3.5 Workflow project type is no
longer supported in VS2017. This is by design as WF from .NET 3.5
(System.Workflow) has been deprecated since 2012. While you will not be
able to create new projects, it is still possible to ope
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/which-javascript-framework-should-i-choose-
> enterprise-tony-wright
>
Nice summary, but it seems to confirm my fears that the JS ecosystem is
still devolving into more fragments. I mean, oh lord, not another one ...
Vue.js -- *GK*
Hi Tom,
It doesn't appear to have achieved the take up necessary to make it in the
enterprise. Also, Rob Eisner has gone and joined Microsoft and doesnt
appear to have done much with it since.
The three biggest players are now Vue, react and angular.
I wrote an article on this which you can find
19 matches
Mail list logo
