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

The future of .NET Standard

devblogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#61

Post by WorldMaker »

qz2 wrote: post #54
bookshelf976 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by five different variants? Also, what are the chunks of the ecosystem that were abandoned? Web Forms? Silverlight? UWP? Microsoft has shown an amazing ability to modernize and improve the platform without dragging baggage around from one version to the next. We just took an ASP.NET MVC web app developed in 2005 for Windows/IIS and shipped it on linux using .NET core— the conversion took 1 developer…

Trivial projects yeah. This is not a trivial project. As for different variants. Two different http pipelines (classic, integrated), OWIN, one obsolete variant of OWIN, whatever is lurking inside .Net core now. WebAPI, MVC, bits of the remains of WCF floating around. Abandoned bits: WCF, WWF, older OWIN pipelines, SignalR and a huge chunk of open source projects and commercial CLR packages. It's a shit show it really…

SignalR is still supported. Though yes, modern "Core SignalR" is something of a rewrite compared to older versions of SignalR, though the biggest backwards incompatible changes are JS client side, not server side .NET side (most of that remains the same once you swap nuget packages), as they dropped the magic JS autogenerated client for a sometimes more sensible "Event Emitter" style client.

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#62

Post by WorldMaker »

lostmsu wrote: post #26
Todd wrote: post #23

This is good news for experienced .NET developers and newcomers alike. It marks the end of the journey from legacy .NET Framework to fully open source cross-platform .NET. .NET Standard was confusing, and the ubiquitous TFMs in the early days were even more so. But all of those struggles where made to achieve a cross-runtime compatibility layer to make it easier to support both ecosystems. It was a Herculean effort b…

I am not sure about the end of the journey. Lots of legacy .NET Framework code means I will continue targeting .NET Standard 2.0. That's why nobody used 2.1 - it did not support legacy framework. .NET 5 does not solve this problem. Just renaming .NET Core (3+1) to .NET 5 won't magically make legacy code portable. Also, there is still very popular Unity 3D, that can target later framework, but will continue to run on…

My understanding is that Unity is hoping to catch up as soon as some of the final AOT stuff merges from Mono into .NET 6, so "for a while" in the case of Unity is now supposed to be a year or less (given Preview versions).

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#63

Post by WorldMaker »

JamesSwift wrote: post #49
yAak wrote: post #20

As a primarily native-client dev who has developed for most major desktop and mobile platforms, I hope MS achieves it's goal of .NET being a truly solid cross-platform option, but in a way that enables clean and efficient native-code interop. Having used C++, some insane hand-rolled solutions, PhoneGap/Cordova, Unity, and now Kotlin MPP, I know that the "cross-platform" dream is messy and fraught with disaster, but I…

Xamarin.Native is equivalent to Kotlin MPP but much more mature. Give it a look if you haven't, its a great option for sticking with .net

Also, a lot of the Xamarin stuff will be merging directly "out of the box" with .NET 6 next year. In particular, what used to be called Xamarin.Forms will be called MAUI [Multi-platform Application UI] starting with .NET 6, and the MAUI name and new namespaces (Xamarin.Forms => System.Maui, Xamarin.Essentials => System.Devices) seem to show greater investment/interest from Microsoft in making it first class moving forward.

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#64

Post by WorldMaker »

kerng wrote: post #46

Maybe Microsoft should give this whole thing a reboot. After many years working with .net but not following it closely last 2-4 years I'm hopelessly lost what's going on....

This is the "reboot announcement". Starting with .NET 5 there's only one .NET again that matters (though you'll hear lots of legacy support complaints for years to come). 5 is now the highest version number and the next version number is 6 like you would expect. There's no other versions you need to know unless you have to support legacy code (and there, it's probably time to reboot if you are supporting certain types of legacy code).

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#65

Post by tracker1 »

daxfohl wrote: post #18
Someone wrote: post #2

Earlier articles in this ongoing series of “how to name things”: - September 2016: Introducing .NET Standard ( https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-standa... ) - May 2019: .NET Core is the Future of .NET ( https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/net-core-is-the-future... ) - May 2019: Introducing .NET 5 ( https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/introducing-net-5/ ) (Yes, the last two are from the same mo…

Omfg, the hours I've wasted searching for netframework answers, and all the search results are netcore. Because search engines prefer newer, and nobody adds "framework" to their questions.

I've had the opposite problem more than once. ;-) When .Net Core 3.x was in development, OMG was it hard to actually find examples of how to do certain things.

At least .Net Core (soon 5) is easier to target containers (Docker) with.

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#66

Post by yread »

qz2 wrote: post #54
bookshelf976 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by five different variants? Also, what are the chunks of the ecosystem that were abandoned? Web Forms? Silverlight? UWP? Microsoft has shown an amazing ability to modernize and improve the platform without dragging baggage around from one version to the next. We just took an ASP.NET MVC web app developed in 2005 for Windows/IIS and shipped it on linux using .NET core— the conversion took 1 developer…

Trivial projects yeah. This is not a trivial project. As for different variants. Two different http pipelines (classic, integrated), OWIN, one obsolete variant of OWIN, whatever is lurking inside .Net core now. WebAPI, MVC, bits of the remains of WCF floating around. Abandoned bits: WCF, WWF, older OWIN pipelines, SignalR and a huge chunk of open source projects and commercial CLR packages. It's a shit show it really…

WWF has nothing in common with the other stuff?! It was also one of the shittier MS technologies. Shipping software over decades is tricky: look at the alternatives: what web app from 2005 could you just run today? How has the platform developed over time? PHP, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby... No really clear winner there, IMO

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#67

Post by qz2 »

yread wrote: post #66
qz2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trivial projects yeah. This is not a trivial project. As for different variants. Two different http pipelines (classic, integrated), OWIN, one obsolete variant of OWIN, whatever is lurking inside .Net core now. WebAPI, MVC, bits of the remains of WCF floating around. Abandoned bits: WCF, WWF, older OWIN pipelines, SignalR and a huge chunk of open source projects and commercial CLR packages. It's a shit show it really…

WWF has nothing in common with the other stuff?! It was also one of the shittier MS technologies. Shipping software over decades is tricky: look at the alternatives: what web app from 2005 could you just run today? How has the platform developed over time? PHP, Perl, Python, Java, Ruby... No really clear winner there, IMO

What about AppFabric which tied it and all their ESB stuff together. That was flushed faster than a bag of crack in a police toilet.

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#68

Post by nullsense »

bookshelf976 wrote: post #36
qz2 wrote: post #11

This is the most schizophrenic platform I've ever worked on. I've just spent an hour trying to make something work across the five different variants and web pipelines doing things underneath. Edit: to be clear we have completely hung legacy stuff which is waiting resources (lots of $$$$ wasted) to port it to later versions of the frameworks because huge chunks of the ecosystem got abandoned by MS and the OSS develop…

What do you mean by five different variants? Also, what are the chunks of the ecosystem that were abandoned? Web Forms? Silverlight? UWP? Microsoft has shown an amazing ability to modernize and improve the platform without dragging baggage around from one version to the next. We just took an ASP.NET MVC web app developed in 2005 for Windows/IIS and shipped it on linux using .NET core— the conversion took 1 developer…

We have a million line SaaS on .NET 4.7.2 running EF 5 that we can't upgrade to .NET Core.

We can't do it all in one big bang as it's too much effort and too risky. It will like just continue to rot. We're trying to break it up somewhat and write new parts in .NET Core, but it's an ugly reality staring us in the face.

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#69

Post by nullsense »

teh_klev wrote: post #60

As someone who was somewhat out of the loop for a couple of years with regards to .NET/Core etc and the "Standard" thing, I had kind of wondered what all these new "Standard" options in Visual Studio meant and after a couple of hours of Googling it made sense. I think there's a few folks out there who make a wee bit of a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to this "unification" effort by Microsoft to deliver I g…

In my experience it has become a Python 2 vs. Python 3 situation.

For those projects stuck on .NET 4x it's getting progressively harder to Google for relevant info on .NET Framework. With the switch back you will be trying to find info on .NET 5 and you'll turn up stuff for .NET 4.5 and you'll have to go out of your way to additionally search for .NET Core.

I feel like MS backtracked on what they initially said when they said .NET and .NET Core would continue to both be developed. Instead they sort of invented this loophole of saying well .NET Core is .NET now so we are continuing to develop .NET.

Re: The future of .NET Standard

#70

Post by cwhiz »

kerng wrote: post #46

Maybe Microsoft should give this whole thing a reboot. After many years working with .net but not following it closely last 2-4 years I'm hopelessly lost what's going on....

Well you missed a whole bunch of commotion. .Net 5 is the new .Net and you don’t need to worry about standard or core or 2.0, 2.1, 3.x, backward compatibility, etc.

If you start a new project after .Net5 is released in November, there will be little to nothing to worry about and you won’t have missed much of anything.

Post reply on HN