Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

.NET Standard 2.0 is final

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#41

Post by snuxoll »

janpieterz wrote: post #30
oceanswave wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an interface perspective. From a behavioral perspective not so much. A lot of classes will throw not implemented or have slightly different results

Wait... first I've heard of this. Not that I'm reading every single post letter for letter but have been following the .NET Standard move quite a bit. Is there a list somewhere that specifies what is not implemented per target, though it's in the standard?

There's multiple releases of .Net Standard, different releases of .Net Core target different releases of Standard. .Net Core 1.2 will be the first version to support the full .Net Standard 2.0 API surface.

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#42

Post by Rusky »

snuxoll wrote: post #40
maxxxxx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if you are going about this the right way. Instead of doing .NET standard, .NET Core and .NET full framework with overlapping functionality, I think it would better to have .NET Core as the underlining cross-platform standard. Then add WPF, WCF and whatever as separate packages that may be cross-platform or not. The whole thing reminds me a little of the UI situation. Start with Winforms, don't improve…

.Net Standard isn't an implementation, it's a specification. Code that targets .Net Standard is guaranteed to run on any compatible runtime that supports it. .Net Core has API's that aren't applicable to the Windows full-fat Framework, Mono or Xamarin - you don't need or want them there.

All of these API surfaces are pretty large- what is a good way to get a feel for what they do/don't offer? In particular, what are you referring to in .NET Core that you wouldn't want in Framework?

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#43

Post by wfunction »

jongalloway2 wrote: post #18

For people confused about what .NET Standard is and how it relates to .NET Core: Here's an FAQ: https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/faq.md Here's a series of short videos from the product team explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRAdsfhKI4OWx321A_pr-... Short excerpt from the FAQ: .NET Standard is a specification that represents a set of APIs that all .NET platforms have to implement…

What about the BCL, CLS, etc.?

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#44

Post by [deleted] »

snuxoll wrote: post #40
maxxxxx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if you are going about this the right way. Instead of doing .NET standard, .NET Core and .NET full framework with overlapping functionality, I think it would better to have .NET Core as the underlining cross-platform standard. Then add WPF, WCF and whatever as separate packages that may be cross-platform or not. The whole thing reminds me a little of the UI situation. Start with Winforms, don't improve…

.Net Standard isn't an implementation, it's a specification. Code that targets .Net Standard is guaranteed to run on any compatible runtime that supports it. .Net Core has API's that aren't applicable to the Windows full-fat Framework, Mono or Xamarin - you don't need or want them there.

[deleted]

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#45

Post by maxxxxx »

snuxoll wrote: post #40
maxxxxx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if you are going about this the right way. Instead of doing .NET standard, .NET Core and .NET full framework with overlapping functionality, I think it would better to have .NET Core as the underlining cross-platform standard. Then add WPF, WCF and whatever as separate packages that may be cross-platform or not. The whole thing reminds me a little of the UI situation. Start with Winforms, don't improve…

.Net Standard isn't an implementation, it's a specification. Code that targets .Net Standard is guaranteed to run on any compatible runtime that supports it. .Net Core has API's that aren't applicable to the Windows full-fat Framework, Mono or Xamarin - you don't need or want them there.

This sounds all good but now we are in the typical Microsoft dilemma when you start something. Core or full? Winforms, UWP or WPF? All very similar but different enough to make a move between them difficult.

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#46

Post by pjmlp »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #37
pjmlp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is working out a XAML standard to cover that case. If you check BUILD 2017 sessions, there were a couple of talks about it.

Will the new XAML version (the first one in 10+ years!) finally solve the problems of excessively verbose syntax, excessive XML namespace imports, excessive binding syntax options, and excessive-needing-to-search-stackoverflow-to-do-the-simple-things? :) Any news on allowing JSON or another syntax as an alternative to XML-based XAML?

I fail to see anything good about JSON.

Many of us do enjoy XML based tooling.

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#47

Post by zastrowm »

smitherfield wrote: post #14

So just so I'm clear, .NET ECMA Spec ⊆ .NET Standard ⊆ (.NET Core ∩ Mono ∩ Xamarin ∩ Unity) ⊆ .NET Core ⊆ .NET Framework Correct?

I believe that .NET Core is not a subset of the .NET Framework; e.g. .NET Core might have things that are not yet in .NET framework.

I believe that the things that go into .NET core eventually go into .NET Standard (and thus the framework), but at a slower pace.

Thus it would be:

  .NET ECMA Spec ⊆ .NET Standard ⊆ (.NET Core ∩ Mono ∩ Xamarin ∩ Unity ∩ .NET Framework)

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#48

Post by MarkSweep »

smitherfield wrote: post #33
terrajobst wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. See this comment for the relationships of the specs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14971769 .NET Framework, .NET Core, Mono, Xamarin, and Unity are all implementing all the .NET specs. They are share many aspects, but each also bring specific capabilities that the others don't have, so its not very useful to think of these having a superset/subset relationship.

Hence the intersection symbols.

I don't think .NET Framework is a supper set of all other implementions of .NET. For example, Mono's SIMD types are not in .NET Framework. It is even possible for types to exist in .NET Core that don't exist in .NET Framework.

I think you could say the following:

    .NET ECMA Spec ⊆ .NET Standard
    .NET Standard ⊆ .NET Core
    .NET Standard ⊆ Mono
    .NET Standard ⊆ Xamarin
    .NET Standard ⊆ .NET Framework

Re: .NET Standard 2.0 is final

#50

Post by smitherfield »

MarkSweep wrote: post #48
smitherfield wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the intersection symbols.

I don't think .NET Framework is a supper set of all other implementions of .NET. For example, Mono's SIMD types are not in .NET Framework. It is even possible for types to exist in .NET Core that don't exist in .NET Framework. I think you could say the following: .NET ECMA Spec ⊆ .NET Standard .NET Standard ⊆ .NET Core .NET Standard ⊆ Mono .NET Standard ⊆ Xamarin .NET Standard ⊆ .NET Framework

You're confusing intersection and union.
Post reply on HN