41–50 of 103 posts
I’ve been a C# developer for two (almost) decades, how do people even keep up with these rapid changes in the post Core world and what/when to use them? This is a serious question by the way.
Man it would be sweet to see Unity adopt CoreRT in .NET 5 and just drop all the C++ conversion nonsense. Edit: interesting, someone wrote about this a couple years ago: https://xoofx.com/blog/2018/04/06/porting-unity-to-coreclr I wonder if there’s movement on this internally at Unity.
I’ve been a C# developer for two (almost) decades, how do people even keep up with these rapid changes in the post Core world and what/when to use them? This is a serious question by the way.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/choosing-co...
I’ve been a C# developer for two (almost) decades, how do people even keep up with these rapid changes in the post Core world and what/when to use them? This is a serious question by the way.
I've honestly given up. The new "open" development style of .NET Core is not my cup of tea. It's now riddled with MVP features that are 80% complete, bug-ridden, and undocumented other than couple of blog articles. The compatibility break with the .NET Framework also removed the biggest advantage I saw in C#, which was that any code that I wrote would "just work". Now there's more frameworks, standards, cores, and bu…
The actual issue is this new Microsoft full of half-done projects and trying to reduce engineering costs. They even try to make others write the documentation for their products... MSDN is gone and now docs are a mess.
Ballmer was a mess, but at least he got the devs-first bit right. Nowadays it is devs-last, cloud-first.
Man it would be sweet to see Unity adopt CoreRT in .NET 5 and just drop all the C++ conversion nonsense. Edit: interesting, someone wrote about this a couple years ago: https://xoofx.com/blog/2018/04/06/porting-unity-to-coreclr I wonder if there’s movement on this internally at Unity.
Why would it be "sweet"? There is no gain for the user.
I agree the the Users of Unity may or not see gains in the short term
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MAUI is Xamarin rebranded. Even with its half broken implementations, .NET and Java are still the best options in tooling and managed runtime capabilities.
And it will be crap. What I want, and I'm sure a lot of other devs interested in making C# GUI multi-platform apps, is an UI framework à la Flutter that display the same thing everywhere. In the days of Electron apps not having a native look and feel is not a really problem anymore. The saddest thing is that Microsoft actually offered that years before: Silverlight Out-of-Browser applications, that where running the…
Flutter is Dart Rails, the last hope to save Dart.
Unfortunately reflection is so widely used in .Net libraries and core frameworks that code removal during linking becomes more or a less impossible without spending A LONG TIME decorating an xml file with code removal exceptions. I have done it on Xamarin iOS, it is not fun. So one of the prime dreams of having .net AOT of having an easy way to create a COMPACT self contained native exectuable dies when it hits real…
I've tried to communicate that to some team members but got the impression they weren't so interested in solving that. Or maybe they are reluctant to take a solution from 3rd party, preferring to quickly come up with in-house code instead.
Well, this would clearly cost them at least 5 years of R&D given they are able to find the right PhDs in math and compiler theory who are able to crack that.
As for source code generators as a way to solve the reflection dilemma: they are not going to make a dent as they tied to the specific language (C#), and not to .NET platform as a whole. This makes them somewhat fragile and largely fragmented in the eyes of component vendors.
Man it would be sweet to see Unity adopt CoreRT in .NET 5 and just drop all the C++ conversion nonsense. Edit: interesting, someone wrote about this a couple years ago: https://xoofx.com/blog/2018/04/06/porting-unity-to-coreclr I wonder if there’s movement on this internally at Unity.
Why would it be "sweet"? There is no gain for the user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe Core stated as a minimal runtime for running Asp.net on other platforms than Windows. It was understood that this would not be fully compatible with the standard framework which was too coupled to Windows. But somewhere along the way it was decided that the core platform was the future and where all future improvement will happen. This leaves all .net framework code on a dead end platform. They will not be…
> It just sort of happened because the core project got out of control. A more accurate representation of events would be that .NET Core suddenly fueled a huge interest and growth in .NET as a platform which it hadn't seen in a long time (it was actually in decline!). Microsoft probably decided that for the overall, long-term health of the .NET platform it was more important to cater to these new users, than maintain…
I think it comes down to Core was not conceived as the next version of .net but as an alternative runtime for a specialized purpose. So attention was not paid to decoupling or backwards compatibility or migration paths. And now we have a disaster which will dwarf the python 2/3 conundrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was a requirement twenty years ago when the framework wasn't bundled in the operating system and download speeds were much slower. It's really a non-issue now.
The whole point of .NET Core is to bundle the framework with the application.