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

.NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 317 posts

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#31

Post by EnderMB »

mariusmg wrote: post #9

I've tried to port a MVC project to .NETCore 2 a while ago, it was pretty painful mainly due to lack of @helper syntax in views (everything which relied to @helper had to be changed). Also, from what i saw, nobody is actually in a rush to "move" to .NETCore, most big shops still rely on .Net Framerwork , i still do some occasional work on a project which is using .Net Remoting :)

There are some similarities to Python 3 in .NET Core adoption.

I know plenty of people that would love nothing more than to be up to date and to start using .NET Core, but many of them rely on certain libraries that simply aren't there yet. I know a load of Umbraco devs that are eager to make the jump, but until their CMS supports it, they're kinda stuck if it's a dependency.

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#32

Post by gtsteve »

jeswin wrote: post #7

Given that our deployment platform was Linux (for a .Net Core 3.0 project), I was determined to use Linux and VS Code for development. That was a fail; the verbose nature of C# and the Framework APIs make it impossible to be productive without significant help from a full-fledged IDE like Visual Studio. One might think the verbosity can be reduced by clever coding (and adopting a functional style), but that's not so…

If you'd like to develop on Linux, I suggest trying Jetbrains Rider. It's as good as VS in most cases, and better in several. I've used it as my primary IDE for most of this year.

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#34

Post by oblio »

codeulike wrote: post #28
jeswin wrote: post #7

Given that our deployment platform was Linux (for a .Net Core 3.0 project), I was determined to use Linux and VS Code for development. That was a fail; the verbose nature of C# and the Framework APIs make it impossible to be productive without significant help from a full-fledged IDE like Visual Studio. One might think the verbosity can be reduced by clever coding (and adopting a functional style), but that's not so…

- Allow functions outside of classes What do you mean? Isn't that just anonymous functions?

He wants top level functions. He wants to not have to write classes if he thinks the domain doesn't need modelling as objects.

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#35

Post by jayd16 »

jeswin wrote: post #7

Given that our deployment platform was Linux (for a .Net Core 3.0 project), I was determined to use Linux and VS Code for development. That was a fail; the verbose nature of C# and the Framework APIs make it impossible to be productive without significant help from a full-fledged IDE like Visual Studio. One might think the verbosity can be reduced by clever coding (and adopting a functional style), but that's not so…

The closest you'll get to free floating functions are methods in a static class. The static classes essentially become namespaces.

Then with static using directives, you don't need to spell out the namespaces.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-refe...

You can even put every global function into a single class but still organize your code across multiple files by making them all part of the same partial class.

I personally wouldn't organize my code this way, but it seems like you can achieve what you want today with minimal effort.

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#37

Post by manigandham »

Dolores12 wrote: post #10

>With .NET Core 3.0, we’re at the point where we’ve ported all technologies that are required for modern workloads .net HttpClient is based on outdated cookies RFC, RFC6265(that is 8 years old) is yet to be supported [1]. And what can you do today without good http library? [1] https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/29651

HttpClient is fast and efficient, and the built-in cookie container handles all the standard functionality, although many users just read and handle the cookie header directly.

This RFC seems to be all about rejecting certain cookies under some very specific security rules. How impactful is this really? Is this affecting your app somehow?

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#38

Post by arethuza »

oblio wrote: post #34
codeulike wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Allow functions outside of classes What do you mean? Isn't that just anonymous functions?

He wants top level functions. He wants to not have to write classes if he thinks the domain doesn't need modelling as objects.

You can have static classes that can contain nothing but static members - so effectively a namespace with no instantiation of that class allowed so no objects.

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#39

Post by jmkni »

gtsteve wrote: post #32
jeswin wrote: post #7

Given that our deployment platform was Linux (for a .Net Core 3.0 project), I was determined to use Linux and VS Code for development. That was a fail; the verbose nature of C# and the Framework APIs make it impossible to be productive without significant help from a full-fledged IDE like Visual Studio. One might think the verbosity can be reduced by clever coding (and adopting a functional style), but that's not so…

If you'd like to develop on Linux, I suggest trying Jetbrains Rider. It's as good as VS in most cases, and better in several. I've used it as my primary IDE for most of this year.

+1 for Rider. It's basically ReSharper.

Re: .NET Core 3.0 Concludes the .NET Framework API Porting Project

#40

Post by manigandham »

oblio wrote: post #34
codeulike wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Allow functions outside of classes What do you mean? Isn't that just anonymous functions?

He wants top level functions. He wants to not have to write classes if he thinks the domain doesn't need modelling as objects.

You can use a static class though. It's 1 class that then just behaves like a namespace and doesn't need any object modeling.
Post reply on HN