21–30 of 374 posts
Lots of very cool stuff here (AOT, Aspire, etc.). .NET has been held down by the image of its early days, but it has become a pure joy to work with recently. The improvements in tooling and ergonomics have made it a replacement for Go in our org (we migrated from .NET Core 3.1 to Go back to .NET 6 recently).
I just wish its cross-platform UIs weren't such a mess. Particularly with its MVCish implementation, it was like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be. I really really wish there was a good, straightforward desktop GUI for .Net that simply worked crossplatform and wasn't a complete pain in the ass to program.
.NET 5, .NET Standard, .NET Framework, .NET Core, ... now .NET 8. It's so confusing still.
.NET 5, .NET Standard, .NET Framework, .NET Core, ... now .NET 8. It's so confusing still.
They had to handle a transition phase and as a .net dev at that time, it was surprisingly smooth
.NET 5, .NET Standard, .NET Framework, .NET Core, ... now .NET 8. It's so confusing still.
.NET Core was renamed to .NET 5, which became the mainline .NET. .NET 8 is simply the latest version.
.NET Standard is intended to be a common layer to help bridge between .NET Framework and .NET Core and .NET 5+. It shouldn't be used outside of that context.
.NET Framework is the old, Windows-only .NET. It should not be used for new projects and should be migrated away from.
I just wish its cross-platform UIs weren't such a mess. Particularly with its MVCish implementation, it was like it couldn't decide what it wanted to be. I really really wish there was a good, straightforward desktop GUI for .Net that simply worked crossplatform and wasn't a complete pain in the ass to program.
Can I get an explanation of the relationship between .NET and Mono? I have vague memory of reading somewhere that Mono or maybe just MonoBuild was completely obsolete since everything was now open source in .NET. Does Mono still have a reason to exist? Is it all incorporated into .NET now? (btw, I still don't get why it's called .NET, and I don't know if assemblies are native code or bytecode wrapped in the same bina…
From .NET 5 onwards, the framework is cross-platform. So as a separate thing, Mono isn't usually needed or part of the mainstream any more.
> I don't know if assemblies are native code or bytecode wrapped in the same binary format as .exe,
Yes, they are. Either, depending on your build target.
.NET 5, .NET Standard, .NET Framework, .NET Core, ... now .NET 8. It's so confusing still.
If you are writing a .NET library _and_ want it to work with very old deployments, then you also have to care about .NET Standard.
Can I get an explanation of the relationship between .NET and Mono? I have vague memory of reading somewhere that Mono or maybe just MonoBuild was completely obsolete since everything was now open source in .NET. Does Mono still have a reason to exist? Is it all incorporated into .NET now? (btw, I still don't get why it's called .NET, and I don't know if assemblies are native code or bytecode wrapped in the same bina…
For most .NET apps you can use .NET 5/6/7/8.
Can I get an explanation of the relationship between .NET and Mono? I have vague memory of reading somewhere that Mono or maybe just MonoBuild was completely obsolete since everything was now open source in .NET. Does Mono still have a reason to exist? Is it all incorporated into .NET now? (btw, I still don't get why it's called .NET, and I don't know if assemblies are native code or bytecode wrapped in the same bina…