.NET Standard 2.1 • Hacker News Board

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#121

Post by WorldMaker » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

gulbanana wrote: post #112

WorldMaker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”.

I feel that way, too, but I understand some of the reasons people still want to see a ".NET Framework 5.x".

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#122

Post by algorithmsRcool » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:36 PM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #115

algorithmsRcool wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I think it is an engineering problem. WPF is basically cemented to DirectX which only exists on Windows.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#123

Post by WorldMaker » Tue, Nov 06, 2018, 4:41 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #80

WorldMaker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Yeah, I think the question is "will Framework be the slow moving, but 'living' component you target for long-term, but perhaps not eternal, stability on Windows platforms or will it be a legacy component that Windows is burdened with only for backwar…

Yeah, I think Microsoft has changed its mind a couple times too many. With .NET Core's original announcement it sounded like .NET Framework was legacy and in mostly maintenance mode. With .NET Standard It would be great if they better articulated that "probably not ever", but I can't blame them for not doing that when we all know that a bunch of enterprise devs and HN/Reddit/Slashdot randoms would be out in force with pitchforks and torches if they did.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#124

Post by int_19h » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

WorldMaker wrote: post #51

polskibus wrote: post #11

It's a pity 2.1 will not be implemented by netfx 4.8. I wonder if there will ever be E netfx with netstandard 2.1. Sadly things are not looking good for standardization - on one hand we have new netstandard without netfx and on the other aspnet.core without netstandard ( https://github.com/aspnet/AspNetCore/issues/3753 ).

The interesting thing to note is that the core runtime in netfx hasn't changed in a long while (.NET Framework 3.x and .NET Framework 4.x are still essentially CLR 2), and it sounds like after what Microsoft learned from the CLR 1 -> CLR 2 (.NET 1.0 -> .NET 2.0) update they never want to do that again if they can avoid it. CLR 1 to CLR 2 had a very good reason to do that (generics); .NET Standard 2.1 has a lot of lit…

> (.NET Framework 3.x and .NET Framework 4.x are still essentially CLR 2)

Not quite. There is a grand total of three different major versions of the VM on Windows:

CLR 1.0 - used by .NET Framework 1.0 and 1.1 CLR 2.0 - used by .NET Framework 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 CLR 4.0 - used by .NET Framework 4+

These can all be installed side-by-side, and any particular .NET application is bound to a particular CLR version.

The differences between 4.0 and 2.0 are far more minor than the ones between 2.0 and 1.0. 2.0 added a bunch of changes visible on IL level - most notably, generics, and all the new IL opcodes and metadata to support them. 4.0 was mostly internal improvements - better JIT, GC etc. But there were also some new features, like NoPIA and "uncatchable" exception types (StackOverflowException etc), and a new CLR hosting API that allowed it to be hosted side-by-side with old frameworks in a native app.