Welcome to Battle
Press space to navigate.
Press left arrow to go back.
Press right arrow to go forward.
Online at https://ignatandrei.github.io/Presentations/Battle2025prez.html
For download https://ignatandrei.github.io/Presentations/Battle2025.zip
Andrei Ignat http://msprogrammer.serviciipeweb.ro/
For print ?print-pdf
For all slides press ESC
Press space to navigate.
Press left arrow to go back.
Press right arrow to go forward.
Online at https://ignatandrei.github.io/Presentations/Battle2025prez.html
For download https://ignatandrei.github.io/Presentations/Battle2025.zip
About me
Andrei Ignat http://msprogrammer.serviciipeweb.ro/
System.Console.WriteLine("Ignat Andrei");
System.Console.WriteLine("Battle");
YouTube 5 minutes .NET and tools : http://bit.ly/5MinTools
Book Making Open Source Component : http://bit.ly/NetOpenSourceComponent
Book Copy Paste from StackOverflow : https://amzn.to/2PQ8EDc
Roslyn Source Code Generators with examples : https://ignatandrei.github.io/RSCG_Examples/
Monthly meetings: https://www.meetup.com/Bucharest-A-D-C-E-S-Meetup/
For notes press SFor print ?print-pdf
For all slides press ESC
We will talk about different technologies in .NET to achieve the same purpose.
example :
OOP: Default Interface methods vs abstract class
Test : XUnit vs MSTest vs NUnit
Test : XUnit vs MSTest vs NUnit
First time ( press down arrow)
DataAccess: EFCore vs Dapper
API: Controllers vs MinimalAPI
CLI : Console App vs ASP.NET Core app
Programming : Records vs Class vs Tuples
API: Controllers vs MinimalAPI
CLI : Console App vs ASP.NET Core app
Programming : Records vs Class vs Tuples
Data Access
Debate: Code to DB sau DB to Code
Pro EFCore : independenta de BD
Pro EFCore : independenta de BD
| Pro EFCORE | Pro Dapper | Contra EFCORE | Contra Dapper |
| Folosesti doar LINQ si nu te gindesti la Proceduri stocate , SQL pur | Ai control asupra Sql-ului si poti sa faci optimizari | Refacerea modelului daca modific BD .... | Trebuie sa te pricepi la SQL |
| Se optimizeaza cu Split Queries si AsNoTracking | Daca ai mai multa experienta cu SQL, atunci Dapper este mai usor de folosit | merge lazy loading | Nu merge lazy loading |
| Crapa la build time, in loc de compile time | Mai putin boilerplate code | read heavy : setup mai greu | Contra 3 |
| Scaffolding ( BD => Code ) | Cod mai simplu | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
API
| Pro Minimal API | Pro Controller | Contra Minimal API | Contra Controller |
| Simplitate - pentru programatori incepatori | Are de toate : Autentificare, Autorizare , request , filter | Stufos dupa o buna perioada de timp | Contra 1 |
| Un punct bun de inceput | Pro 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Rapid de scris | Pro 3 | Lipsesc unele functionalitati - validare cu atribute default | Contra 3 |
| memoria mai mica bun pentru microservicii ( micro !) | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
CLI
| Pro Console App | Pro ASP.NET Core app | Contra Console App | Contra ASP.NET Core app |
| Simplu - mai putin layere | Dependency Injection by default | Mai greu de facut logging , monitoring si altele | Start time |
| Pro 2 | Logging, monitoring | Contra 2 | Resurse |
| Pro 3 | Scalare si concurenta | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
Programming
| Pro Records | Pro Tuples | Pro Class | Contra Records | Contra Tuples | Contra Class |
| mai usor de utilizat decit tuplu | daca le folosesti o singura data , atunci named tuple | poti sa comentezi mai usor proprietatile unei clase decit ale unui tuplu / record | Contra 1 | Contra 1 | Contra 1 |
| Bun la partea de dto,event, query results | Pro 2 | Pro 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Partea de egalitate | Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
Default Interface vs Abstract Class
| Pro Default Interface methods | Pro abstract class | Contra Default Interface methods | Contra abstract class |
| Interfetele nu ar trebui sa aiba implementari | Vrei sa mostenesti implementari | Daca adaugi la o interfata, trebuie sa o implementezi in toate clasele | Poti sa adaugi fara sa iti dai seama daca tin seama de clasa respectiva |
| Poti sa implementezi mai multe interfete | Rapiditate de executie | IAsyncDisposable | Contra 2 |
| Il obligi pe dezvoltator sa implementeze metodele respective | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
Testing frameworks
| Pro XUnit | Pro MSTest | Pro NUnit | Contra XUnit | Contra MSTest | Contra NUnit |
| Personal : mai usor de utilizat . | Integrat mai bine cu Visual Studio | Pro 1 | Load de date pe tests | Contra 1 | Contra 1 |
| Se face dispose la clasa de test | Pro 2 | Pro 2 | Assert.Throws generic, nu cu tip de exceptie | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
Swagger on Dev vs Postman
| Pro Swagger | Pro Postman | Contra Swagger On Dev | Contra Swagger On Prod |
| Usor de vazut ce se intimpla in API | Pro 1 | Contra 1 | Security by Obscurity |
| Pro 2 | Pro 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
UnitOfWork vs Repository
| Pro Unit Of Work | Pro Repository | Contra Unit Of Work | Contra Repository |
| Pro 1 | Pro 1 | Contra 1 | Contra 1 |
| Pro 2 | Pro 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
WebAPI vs Azure Functions
| Pro WebAPI | Pro Azure Functions | Contra WebAPI | Contra Azure Functions |
| Pro 1 | Pro 1 | Contra 1 | Contra 1 |
| Pro 2 | Pro 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |
SqlServer on local vs Azure Sql
| Pro SqlServer on local | Pro Azure Sql | Contra SqlServer on local | Contra Azure Sql |
| Pro 1 | Pro 1 | Contra 1 | Contra 1 |
| Pro 2 | Pro 2 | Contra 2 | Contra 2 |
| Pro 3 | Pro 3 | Contra 3 | Contra 3 |
| Pro 4 | Pro 4 | Contra 4 | Contra 4 |