Guides

An AI app builder that outputs .NET

Bolt, Lovable, v0 and the rest are good at what they do. If your team maintains C#, the question isn't which one writes better code - it's which stack you're left holding.

The difference is the output, not the chat

Every tool in this space works roughly the same way from the outside: you describe what you want, a model writes the code, you get a running app. The chat is not the product. What you keep afterwards is.

Most AI app builders target the JavaScript ecosystem. You typically end up with a React or Next.js front end, often paired with a hosted backend such as Supabase or Firebase. For a prototype, a demo, or a team that already writes TypeScript, that is exactly right - and those tools are genuinely fast at it.

ProjectHelm targets .NET. What it generates is an ASP.NET Core MVC solution on net10.0, with EF Core for data access, split into ordinary projects:

It is a .slnx solution. It opens in Visual Studio or Rider. A C# developer who has never heard of ProjectHelm can read it, because there is nothing to learn first - it is the project structure they would have written.

The question that decides it: who maintains this in a year

This is the part that tends to get skipped during the demo. A generated app is only cheap if the people who inherit it can work on it. If your team is a .NET shop, a React SPA plus a hosted Postgres backend is not a saving - it is a second stack, a second deployment story, and a second set of things to be on call for.

The same question cuts the other way, and it is worth being straight about it. If your team writes TypeScript, if you want a marketing site or a rich single-page interface, or if you need a clickable prototype this afternoon and nobody will maintain it afterwards, the JavaScript-first tools are the better choice. ProjectHelm is not trying to win that comparison.

What "real app" means here, concretely

Each app you create gets, from the first build:

Every change is a diff you approve

The assistant does not edit your app while you watch. It proposes, and the proposal is a diff - added lists, changed fields, new pages - which you Apply or Discard. Colour and page-content changes go live in seconds; structural changes regenerate the source and go out on a Publish.

That matters more than it sounds. The failure mode of AI code generation is not bad code, it is unreviewed code: a model quietly rewriting something that worked. A diff you have to approve makes that impossible by construction, and it is the same discipline whether the change is a button colour or your data model.

Lock-in, honestly

ProjectHelm hosts your app and bills for the AI you use and a small daily rate while it runs. That is a commercial relationship, and you should read it as one.

What it does not do is make the code unreadable without us. There is no proprietary runtime, no ProjectHelm SDK your controllers inherit from, no DSL in place of C#. The generated solution is ordinary ASP.NET Core - the kind of thing that, if you walked away, another .NET developer could pick up and keep building. That is the whole point of generating this stack rather than a framework of our own.

A short version

If you want to see what it produces for something specific, the fastest way is walking through a CRUD app end to end.

Describe your app. Read the diff. Ship it.

The source is yours to open in Visual Studio or Rider from the first build. Sign up and see what it generates for your own idea.