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

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#51

Post by WorldMaker »

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 little reasons, but no good, big reason to break the .NET Framework world with a runtime upgrade.

(Also, it looks like ASP.NET Core still should be considered .NET Standard 2.1 compatible, but yes the "upgrade" to .NET Standard 2.1 is fascinating because it loses compatibility with netfx.)

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#52

Post by thrower123 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #45
taco_emoji wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.NET Framework is not anywhere close to deprecated, AFAIK...

I guess it is a matter of perspective and your definition of the word "deprecated". This is the definition I use (from Wikipedia): > In several fields, deprecation is the discouragement of use of some [..] feature Microsoft are currently telling people for new projects only use .Net Framework if you have a specific requirement, otherwise use .Net Core. .Net Core is therefore the default choice. That to me is discoura…

There is still just a lot of stuff you can't do on Core alone. It's fine, I guess, if you are doing fairly vanilla web server development, although the last time I tried it was not the easiest to run .NET Core on Azure. Probably the story is better there now than it was.

Microsoft also has the entire silent iceberg of enterprise development that is going to be slogging along with .Net framework applications for years and years. Billions of lines of code that work as is, and just are not going to be invested in to update them.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#53

Post by mbesto »

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)

Knowing the differences here is pretty serious for my day-to-day work. Does anyone have a guide/breakdown/etc that I can refer to that explains all of the versions of .NET? The documentation from Microsoft itself is atrocious.

Does it exist somewhere?

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#54

Post by oaiey »

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 ).

I think it is fair to say, that we need to realize, that .NET Core runs on all of the platforms which in Microsoft view have future (.NET Core, Xamarin, Unity and UWP). The only platform no one is really interested (from Microsoft perspective) is the .NET Framework.

The .NET Framework is, from Microsoft .NET and WIndows Team perspective, a legacy burden which is unable to innovate, change or improve due to the deployment methodology. It is a dead end.

I know, it sucks. I am an enterprise developer and understand the consequences. I hate it as well, but I can completely follow their rationale. They make it possible for us to develop WPF and WinForms on .NET Core which is their strategy to compensate the blow they give us.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#55

Post by oaiey »

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…

ASP.NET Core is not .NET Standard based. Most of its libraries are, but the core runtime is bound to a platform like .NET Core (and earlier the .NET Framework). It was never running on a pure .NET Standard interface.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#56

Post by oaiey »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7

Let me just check if I finally understand this: - .Net Framework: The Windows Specific (and nearly deprecated) branch - .Net Core: The replacement for Framework and cross platform branch (but with Windows specific libraries) - .Net Standard: A way to write something that runs on both .Net Framework and Core?

I would not call .NET Core having "Windows specific libraries". It is more like they have feature packages on-top, which are Windows specific.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#57

Post by WorldMaker »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
gulbanana wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that was the primary purpose before, but since .NET Framework will no longer be implementing new .NET Standard versions, it's now more like a way to write something that runs on both .NET Core and on Xamarin platforms

> 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-oriented features in .NET Standard 2.1 doesn't seem worth it at first glance, not compared to the CLR 2.0 upgrade for generics.)

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#58

Post by oaiey »

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 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). They are all already dead for some years, but no one tells. They are supported in the .NET Framework but no progress happens. And .NET Core will never see them.

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#59

Post by alkonaut »

Someone1234 wrote: post #7

Let me just check if I finally understand this: - .Net Framework: The Windows Specific (and nearly deprecated) branch - .Net Core: The replacement for Framework and cross platform branch (but with Windows specific libraries) - .Net Standard: A way to write something that runs on both .Net Framework and Core?

Yes that's about right.

Standard = an API set. If you know OO in C# or Java this is effectively analogous to an interface.

It's the smallest common denominator of various implementations.

.NET Core = the new implementation

.NET Framework = the old implementation

Re: .NET Standard 2.1

#60

Post by oaiey »

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…

I need to highlight, that ASP.NET Core never run on .NET Standard. Some parts always have been dual-compiled for netcoreapp2.0 and net46(?).
Post reply on HN