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

.NET Standard 2.1

blogs.msdn.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#111

Post by titanix2 »

SimonPStevens wrote: post #47

Everytime I start to think Microsoft is heading in the right direction they go and blow it all away again. This week we've already had a new asp.net core which drops support for .net standard and only supports .net core. And now, a new version of .net standard that .net fx isn't going to support. We are right back at the mess of portable class libraries with all their different supported profiles. It means app devs a…

Exactly. The fact that the .net framework will not implement .net standard mean the latter lost immediately most of its raison d'être.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#112

Post by gulbanana »

WorldMaker wrote: post #57
dragonwriter wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that was the primary purpose before, but since .NET Framework will no longer be implementing new .NET Standard versions .NET Framework 4.8 won't implement .NET Standard 2.1 doesn't mean .NET Framework won't implement new .NET Standard versions. .NET Framework has been announced previously to be slower-movinh and lower-risk than Core, so it's not surprising that it will take longer for it to support new versions of…

Microsoft here sounds extremely hesitant to ever do the ".NET Framework 5.0" release that would break the .NET Framework world necessary to push a new CLR Runtime out. .NET Framework 3.x and .NET 4.x have all still been using the CLR 2.0 (for the most part), and the risk at upgrading the CLR is far greater than the .NET Framework 1.0 to .NET Framework 2.0 era. (Certainly the "reward" of the new mostly performance-ori…

they have done it; it’s called “.NET Core”.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#113

Post by pjmlp »

manigandham wrote: post #104
pjmlp wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is see is not being able to go to .NET Core because of third party dependencies. And we still have lots of them that until now haven't cared much about .NET Core.

They will start caring now, or will be replaced by ones that do.

I wish, some of them are the only animal that matters on their domain.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#114

Post by benaadams »

oaiey wrote: post #58

I think they prepare already a while the shift to .NET Core as the primary .NET platform (also on Windows). - .NET Core will soon run all three UI technologies of modern Windows UWP, WinForms and WPF (.NET Core 3). - The Windows Compatability Pack for .NET Core shifted some popular .NET Framework libraries to .NET Core (some only on Windows). There are one thing, Microsoft is really bad with: Telling the world that s…

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/porting/librari...

Code Access Security and Security Transparency aren't supported on .NET Framework either

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#115

Post by solarkraft »

algorithmsRcool wrote: post #28
qwerty456127 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If WPF is coming in .NET Core, does this mean we are going to be able to run WPF apps on Linux and Mac?

Nope, it will be a windows only capability. -Edit- I should add that the purpose of them adding this capability isn't to set up a new cross-platform UI suite. It is just to lure enterprise shops to .NET core by supporting more of their .NET Framework workloads

I'm still wondering whether it would be smart for them to port WPF or UWP to all platforms. They are already decoupling their services from Windows and a UI library would be quite a flagship for them.

Then again they'd also lose the Windows vendor lock-in, which might still be more valuable to them.

Then again they could sell their development toolchain and gain developer sympathy.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#117

Post by victorNicollet »

c-smile wrote: post #26

So they added Span as a big thing ... > (Span is) at the heart of most performance-related improvements in .NET Core 2.1. Since it allows managing buffers in a more efficient way, it can help in reducing allocations and copying. We consider Span to be a very fundamental type as it requires runtime and compiler support in order to be fully leveraged. Small struct that is declared as public readonly ref struct Span { p…

Small struct that is declared as

        public readonly ref struct Span 
        { 
          private readonly ref T _pointer; 
          private readonly int _length; 
          ... 
        }
But the important parts are not _pointer or _length. Most of the implementation effort went into the `ref struct` part, which was released at the same time as Span and is precisely what makes Span powerful. It is a big thing.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#118

Post by skrowl »

cptskippy wrote: post #75
oaiey wrote: post #58

I think they prepare already a while the shift to .NET Core as the primary .NET platform (also on Windows). - .NET Core will soon run all three UI technologies of modern Windows UWP, WinForms and WPF (.NET Core 3). - The Windows Compatability Pack for .NET Core shifted some popular .NET Framework libraries to .NET Core (some only on Windows). There are one thing, Microsoft is really bad with: Telling the world that s…

> Microsoft is really bad with: Telling the world that something is deprecated. There is a set of technologies in the .NET Framework which have no future: AppDomains, WCF, Code Access Security, Workflow Foundation, Cardspace, ... (just to name a few). There's no reason to deprecate a mature product if there's need for it, it has sufficient test coverage, and there's low/no maintenance. There is however a risk involve…

I agree. Don't deprecate just to clean house. Only deprecate when you have a mature / table replacement.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#119

Post by skrowl »

legulere wrote: post #37
stevecalifornia wrote: post #10

Suggested naming standard: - .Net API Specification - (now known as .Net Standard) - .Net Windows - (now known as .Net Framework) - .Net Cross Platform - (now known as .Net Core)

There’s already universal windows platform, which is basically windows 10 only.

Universal windows platform also runs on Xbox One and certain mixed-reality headsets. It's not just for Windows 10.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#120

Post by WorldMaker »

qwerty456127 wrote: post #89
WorldMaker wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, yes, but a lot of its cross-platform capabilities are community-contributed/community-led, there are still some APIs that don't have cross-platform implementations (because it hasn't been a community priority), but also there are APIs that simply can't work on any platform but Windows (obvious things like Registry access, for instance) and will either no-op or throw clear exceptions on other platforms. Th…

> The "desktop app packs" for WPF and WinForms WinForms work quite nice on Linux with Mono. Won't they cooperate?

They might not port Mono's WinForms to .NET Core? Given how strictly tied to Windows WinForms is, they may not want to give enterprises they are encouraging to use .NET Core any confusion on the subject. Taking that extra step of trying to run the application on Mono shows at least some awareness of possible compatibility issues in the software.

That said, this may still be a great opportunity for .NET Core to encourage trying Mono in its documentation for enterprises looking for cross-platform support. (Hopefully they already knew about Mono by this point, but an extra push won't hurt.

Post reply on HN