pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Introducing .NET Standard
1622 1175
September 26, 2016 by Immo Landwerth [MSFT] // 199 Comments
Questions? Check out the .NET Standard FAQ. You can find the latest version of thecompatibility matrix here.
In my last post, I talked about how we want to make porting to .NET Core easier. In this post, I’llfocus on how we’re making this plan a reality with .NET Standard. We’ll cover which APIs we plan toinclude, how cross-framework compatibility will work, and what all of this means for .NET Core.
If you’re interested in details, this post is for you. But don’t worry if you don’t have time or you’renot interested in details: you can just read the TL;DR section.
For the impatient: TL;DR.NET Standard solves the code sharing problem for .NET developers across all platforms by bringing
@dotnet @aspnet
Search this blog
Search all blogs
Tags
.NET .NET Core
.net framework
.NET Update
announcementasp.net ASP.NET Core
Share 2K Search MSDN with Bing
Server & Tools Blogs > Developer Tools Blogs > .NET Blog
.NET BlogA first-hand look from the .NET engineering teams
Sign in
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
all the APIs that you expect and love across the environments that you need: desktop applications,mobile apps & games, and cloud services:
.NET Standard is a set of APIs that all .NET platforms have to implement. This unifies the
.NET platforms and prevents future fragmentation.
.NET Standard 2.0 will be implemented by .NET Framework, .NET Core, and Xamarin. For
.NET Core, this will add many of the existing APIs that have been requested.
.NET Standard 2.0 includes a compatibility shim for .NET Framework binaries, significantlyincreasing the set of libraries that you can reference from your .NET Standard libraries.
.NET Standard will replace Portable Class Libraries (PCLs) as the tooling story for buildingmulti-platform .NET libraries.
You can see the .NET Standard API definition in the dotnet/standard repo on GitHub.
Why do we need a standard?As explained in detail in the post Introducing .NET Core, the .NET platform was forked quite a bitover the years. On the one hand, this is actually a really good thing. It allowed tailoring .NET to fitthe needs that a single platform wouldn’t have been able to. For example, the .NET CompactFramework was created to fit into the (fairly) restrictive footprint of phones in the 2000 era. Thesame is true today: Unity (a fork of Mono) runs on more than 20 platforms. Being able to fork andcustomize is an important capability for any technology that requires reach.
But on the other hand, this forking poses a massive problem for developers writing code formultiple .NET platforms because there isn’t a unified class library to target:
asp.net
async azure bcl c# clrcodegen
communitycompiler conferencesdiagnostics dotnetConf
dotnetnative Entity
Framework F#
fundamentals httpclient
jit nuget On .NET
open source
performanceportable class
libraries releasesroslyn ryujit Security
Update Servicing vb Visual
Basic Visual F# visual
studio Week in.NET windows store
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
There are currently three major flavors of .NET, which means you have to master three differentbase class libraries in order to write code that works across all of them. Since the industry is muchmore diverse now than when .NET was originally created it’s safe to assume that we’re not donewith creating new .NET platforms. Either Microsoft or someone else will build new flavors of .NET inorder to support new operating systems or to tailor it for specific device capabilities.
This is where the .NET Standard comes in:
Windows Update wpf
WSUS WU xamarin
Archives
August 2017 (7)
July 2017 (12)
June 2017 (13)
May 2017 (15)
April 2017 (7)
March 2017 (8)
February 2017 (8)
January 2017 (8)
All of 2017 (78)
All of 2016 (119)
All of 2015 (40)
All of 2014 (56)
All of 2013 (40)
All of 2012 (27)
All of 2011 (6)
All of 2010 (12)
All of 2009 (52)
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
For developers, this means they only have to master one base class library. Libraries targeting .NETStandard will be able to run on all .NET platforms. And platform providers don’t have to guesswhich APIs they need to offer in order to consume the libraries available on NuGet.
Applications. In the context of applications you don’t use .NET Standard directly. However, youstill benefit indirectly. First of all, .NET Standard makes sure that all .NET platforms share the sameAPI shape for the base class library. Once you learn how to use it in your desktop application youknow how to use it in your mobile application or your cloud service. Secondly, with .NET Standardmost class libraries will become available everywhere, which means the consistency at the baselayer will also apply to the larger .NET library ecosystem.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Portable Class Libraries. Let’s contrast this with how Portable Class Libraries (PCL) work today.With PCLs, you select the platforms you want to run on and the tooling presents you with theresulting API set you can use. So while the tooling helps you to produce binaries that work onmultiple platforms, it still forces you to think about different base class libraries. With .NET Standardyou have a single base class library. Everything in it will be supported across all .NET platforms —current ones as well as future ones. Another key aspect is that the API availability in .NET Standardis very predictable: higher version equals more APIs. With PCLs, that’s not necessarily the case: theset of available APIs is the result of the intersection between the selected platforms, which doesn’talways produce an API surface you can easily predict.
Consistency in APIs. If you compare .NET Framework, .NET Core, and Xamarin/Mono, you’ll noticethat .NET Core offers the smallest API surface (excluding OS-specific APIs). The first inconsistency ishaving drastic differences in the availability of foundational APIs (such as networking- and cryptoAPIs). The second problem .NET Core introduced was having differences in the API shape of corepieces, especially in reflection. Both inconsistencies are the primary reason why porting code to.NET Core is much harder than it should be. By creating the .NET Standard we’re codifying therequirement of having consistent APIs across all .NET platforms, and this includes availability as wellas the shape of the APIs.
Versioning and Tooling. As I mentioned in Introducing .NET Core our goal with .NET Core was tolay the foundation for a portable .NET platform that can unify APIs in shape and implementation.We intended it to be the next version of portable class libraries. Unfortunately, it didn’t result in agreat tooling experience. Since our goal was to represent any .NET platform we had to break it upinto smaller NuGet packages. This works reasonably well if all these components can be deployedwith the application because you can update them independently. However, when you target anabstract specification, such as PCLs or the .NET Standard, this story doesn’t work so well because
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
there is a very specific combination of versions that will allow you to run on the right set ofplatforms. In order to avoid that issue, we’ve defined .NET Standard as a single NuGet package.Since it only represents the set of required APIs, there is no need to break it up any furtherbecause all .NET platforms have to support it in its entirety anyways. The only important dimensionis its version, which acts like an API level: the higher the version, the more APIs you have, but thelower the version, the more .NET platforms have already implemented it.
To summarize, we need .NET Standard for two reasons:
1. Driving force for consistency. We want to have an agreed upon set of required APIs thatall .NET platforms have to implement in order to gain access to the .NET library ecosystem.
2. Foundation for great cross-platform tooling. We want a simplified tooling experiencethat allows you to target the commonality of all .NET platforms by choosing a single versionnumber.
What’s new in .NET Standard 2.0?When we shipped .NET Core 1.0, we also introduced .NET Standard. There are multiple versions ofthe .NET Standard in order to represent the API availability across all current platforms. Thefollowing table shows which version of an existing platform is compatible with a given version of.NET Standard:
.NET Platform .NET Standard
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
.NET Core → → → → → → 1.0 vNext
.NET Framework → 4.5 4.5.1 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 vNext 4.6.1
Xamarin.iOS → → → → → → → vNext
Xamarin.Android → → → → → → → vNext
Universal Windows Platform → → → → 10.0 → → vNext
Windows → 8.0 8.1
Windows Phone → → 8.1
Windows Phone Silverlight 8.0
The arrows indicate that the platform supports a higher version of .NET Standard. For instance,.NET Core 1.0 supports the .NET Standard version 1.6, which is why there are arrows pointing tothe right for the lower versions 1.0 – 1.5.
You can use this table to understand what the highest version of .NET Standard is that you cantarget, based on which .NET platforms you intend to run on. For instance, if you want to run on.NET Framework 4.5 and .NET Core 1.0, you can at most target .NET Standard 1.1.
You can also see which platforms will support .NET Standard 2.0:
We’ll ship updated versions of .NET Core, Xamarin, and UWP that will add all the necessaryAPIs for supporting .NET Standard 2.0.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
.NET Framework 4.6.1 already implements all the APIs that are part of .NET Standard 2.0.Note that this version appears twice; I’ll cover later why that is and how it works.
.NET Standard is also compatible with Portable Class Libraries. The mapping from PCL profiles to
.NET Standard versions is listed in our documentation.
From a library targeting .NET Standard you’ll be able to reference two kinds of other libraries:
.NET Standard, if their version is lower or equal to the version you’re targeting.
Portable Class Libraries, if their profile can be mapped to a .NET Standard version andthat version is lower or equal to the version you’re targeting.
Graphically, this looks as follows:
Unfortunately, the adoption of PCLs and .NET Standard on NuGet isn’t as high as it would need tobe in order to be a friction free experience. This is how many times a given target occurs inpackages on NuGet.org:
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
packages on NuGet.org:
Target Occurrences
.NET Framework 46,894
.NET Standard 1,886
Portable 4,501
As you can see, it’s quite clear that the vast majority of class libraries on NuGet are targeting .NETFramework. However, we know that a large number of these libraries are only using APIs we’llexpose in .NET Standard 2.0.
In .NET Standard 2.0, we’ll make it possible for libraries that target .NET Standard to also reference
existing .NET Framework binaries through a compatibility shim:
Of course, this will only work for cases where the .NET Framework library uses APIs that are
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
available for .NET Standard. That’s why this isn’t the preferred way of building libraries you intendto use across different .NET platforms. However, this compatibility shim provides a bridge thatenables you to convert your libraries to .NET Standard without having to give up referencingexisting libraries that haven’t been converted yet.
If you want to learn more about how the compatibility shim works, take a look at the specificationfor .NET Standard 2.0.
.NET Standard 2.0 breaking change: adding
.NET Framework 4.6.1 compatibilityA standard is only as useful as there are platforms implementing it. At the same time, we want tomake the .NET Standard meaningful and useful in and of itself, because that’s the API surface thatis available to libraries targeting the standard:
.NET Framework. .NET Framework 4.6.1 has the highest adoption, which makes it the mostattractive version of .NET Framework to target. Hence, we want to make sure that it canimplement .NET Standard 2.0.
.NET Core. As mentioned above, .NET Core has a much smaller API set than .NETFramework or Xamarin. Supporting .NET Standard 2.0 means that we need to extend thesurface area significantly. Since .NET Core doesn’t ship with the OS but with the app,supporting .NET Standard 2.0 only requires updates to the SDK and our NuGet packages.
Xamarin. Xamarin already supports most of the APIs that are part of .NET Standard.Updating works similar to .NET Core — we hope we can update Xamarin to include all APIsthat are currently missing. In fact, the majority of them were already added to the stable
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Cycle 8 release/Mono 4.6.0.
The table listed earlier shows which versions of .NET Framework supports which version of .NETStandard:
1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0
.NET Framework 4.6.1 4.6.2 vNext 4.6.1
Following normal versioning rules one would expect that .NET Standard 2.0 would only besupported by a newer version of .NET Framework, given that the latest version of .NET Framework(4.6.2) only supports .NET Standard 1.5. This would mean that the libraries compiled against .NETStandard 2.0 would not run on the vast majority of .NET Framework installations.
In order to allow .NET Framework 4.6.1 to support .NET Standard 2.0, we had to remove all theAPIs from .NET Standard that were introduced in .NET Standard 1.5 and 1.6.
You may wonder what the impact of that decision is. We ran an analysis of all packages onNuGet.org that target .NET Standard 1.5 or later and use any of these APIs. At the time of thiswriting we only found six non-Microsoft owned packages that do. We’ll reach out to those packageowners and work with them to mitigate the issue. From looking at their usages, it’s clear that theircalls can be replaced with APIs that are coming with .NET Standard 2.0.
In order for these package owners to support .NET Standard 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0, they will need tocross-compile to target these versions specifically. Alternatively, they can chooose to target .NETStandard 2.0 and higher given the broad set of platforms that support it.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Standard 2.0 and higher given the broad set of platforms that support it.
What’s in .NET Standard?In order to decide which APIs will be part of .NET Standard we used the following process:
Input. We start with all the APIs that are available in both .NET Framework and in Xamarin.
Assessment. We classify all these APIs into one of two buckets:
1. Required. APIs that we want all platforms to provide and we believe can beimplemented cross-platform, we label as required.
2. Optional. APIs that are platform-specific or are part of legacy technologies we label asoptional.
Optional APIs aren’t part of .NET Standard but are available as separate NuGet packages. We try tobuild these as libraries targeting .NET Standard so that their implementation can be consumedfrom any platform, but that might not always be feasible for platform specific APIs (e.g. Windowsregistry).
In order to make some APIs optional we may have to remove other APIs that are part of therequired API set. For example, we decided that AppDomain is in .NET Standard while Code AccessSecurity (CAS) is a legacy component. This requires us to remove all members from AppDomainthat use types that are part of CAS, such as overloads on CreateDomain that acceptEvidence.
The .NET Standard API set, as well as our proposal for optional APIs will be reviewed by the .NETStandard’s review body.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Here is the high-level summary of the API surface of .NET Standard 2.0:
If you want to look at the specific API set of .NET Standard 2.0, you can take a look at the .NETStandard GitHub repository. Please note that .NET Standard 2.0 is a work in progress, which meanssome APIs might be added, while some might be removed.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Can I still use platform-specific APIs?One of the biggest challenges in creating an experience for multi-platform class libraries is to avoidonly having the lowest-common denominator while also making sure you don’t accidentally createlibraries that are much less portable than you intend to.
In PCLs we’ve solved the problem by having multiple profiles, each representing the intersection ofa set of platforms. The benefit is that this allows you to max out the API surface between a set oftargets. The .NET Standard represents the set of APIs that all .NET platforms have to implement.
This brings up the question how we model APIs that cannot be implemented on all platforms:
Runtime specific APIs. For example, the ability to generate and run code on the fly usingreflection emit. This cannot work on .NET platforms that do not have a JIT compiler, such as.NET Native on UWP or via Xamarin’s iOS tool chain.
Operating system specific APIs. In .NET we’ve exposed many APIs from Win32 in order tomake them easier to consume. A good example is the Windows registry. Theimplementation depends on the underlying Win32 APIs that don’t have equivalents onother operating systems.
We have a couple of options for these APIs:
1. Make the API unavailable. You cannot use APIs that do not work across all .NETplatforms.
2. Make the API available but throw PlatformNotSupportedException. This would
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
mean that we expose all APIs regardless of whether they are supported everywhere or not.Platforms that do not support them provide the APIs but throwPlatformNotSupportedException.
3. Emulate the API. Mono implements the registry as an API over .ini files. While thatdoesn’t work for apps that use the registry to read information about the OS, it works quitewell for the cases where the application simply uses the registry to store its own state anduser settings.
We believe the best option is a combination. As mentioned above we want the .NET Standard torepresent the set of APIs that all .NET platforms are required to implement. We want to make thisset sensible to implement while ensuring popular APIs are present so that writing cross-platformlibraries is easy and intuitive.
Our general strategy for dealing with technologies that are only available on some .NET platformsis to make them NuGet packages that sit above the .NET Standard. So if you create a .NETStandard-based library, it’ll not reference these APIs by default. You’ll have to add a NuGetpackage that brings them in.
This strategy works well for APIs that are self-contained and thus can be moved into a separatepackage. For cases where individual members on types cannot be implemented everywhere, we’lluse the second and third approach: platforms have to have these members but they can decide tothrow or emulate them.
Let’s look at a few examples and how we plan on modelling them:
Registry. The Windows registry is a self-contained component that will be provided as a
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
separate NuGet package (e.g. Microsoft.Win32.Registry). You’ll be able toconsume it from .NET Core, but it will only work on Windows. Calling registry APIs from anyother OS will result in PlatformNotSupportedException. You’re expected to guardyour calls appropriately or making sure your code will only ever run on Windows. We’reconsidering improving our tooling to help you with detecting these cases.
AppDomain. The AppDomain type has many APIs that aren’t tied to creating appdomains, such as getting the list of loaded assemblies or registering an unhandled exceptionhandler. These APIs are heavily used throughout the .NET library ecosystem. For this case,we decided it’s much better to add this type to .NET Standard and let the few APIs that dealwith app domain creation throw exceptions on platforms that don’t support that, such as.NET Core.
Reflection Emit. Reflection emit is reasonably self-contained and thus we plan on followingthe model as Registry, above. There are other APIs that logically depend on being able toemit code, such as the expression tree’s Compile method or the ability to compile regexes.In some cases we’ll emulate their behavior (e.g. interpreting expression trees instead ofcompiling them) while in other cases we’ll throw (e.g. when compiling regexes).
In general, you can always work around APIs that are unavailable in .NET Standard by targetingspecific .NET platforms, like you do today. We’re thinking about ways how we can improve ourtooling to make the transitions between being platform-specific and being platform-agnostic morefluid so that you can always choose the best option for your situation and not being cornered byearlier design choices.
To summarize:
We’ll expose concepts that might not be available on all .NET platforms.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
We generally make them individual packages that you have to explicitly reference.
In rare cases, individual members might throw exceptions.
The goal is to make .NET Standard-based libraries as powerful and as expressive as possible whilemaking sure you’re aware of cases where you take dependencies on technologies that might notwork everywhere.
What does this mean for .NET Core?We designed .NET Core so that its reference assemblies are the .NET portability story. This made itharder to add new APIs because adding them in .NET Core preempts the decision on whetherthese APIs are made available everywhere. Worse, due to versioning rules, it also means we have todecide which combination of APIs are made available in which order.
Out-of-band delivery. We’ve tried to work this around by making those APIs available “out-of-band” which means making them new components that can sit on top of the existing APIs. Fortechnologies where this is easily possible, that’s the preferred way because it also means any .NETdeveloper can play with the APIs and give us feedback. We’ve done that for immutable collectionswith great success.
Implications for runtime features. However, for features that require runtime work, this is muchharder because we can’t just give you a NuGet package that will work. We also have to give you away to get an updated runtime. That’s harder on platforms that have a system wide runtime (suchas .NET Framework) but is also harder in general because we have multiple runtimes for differentpurposes (e.g. JIT vs AOT). It’s not practical to innovate across all these spectrums at once. The nice
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
thing about .NET Core is that this platform is designed to be fully self-contained. So for the future,we’re more likely to leverage this capability for experimentation and previewing.
Splitting .NET Standard from .NET Core. In order to be able to evolve .NET Core independentlyfrom other .NET platforms we’ve divorced the portability mechanism (which I referred to earlier)from .NET Core. .NET Standard is defined as an independent reference assembly that is satisfied byall .NET platforms. Each of the .NET platforms uses a different set of reference assemblies and thuscan freely add new APIs in whatever cadence they choose. We can then, after the fact, makedecisions around which of these APIs are added to .NET Standard and thus should becomeuniversally available.
Separating portability from .NET Core helps us to speed up development of .NET Core and makesexperimentation of newer features much simpler. Instead of artificially trying to design features tosit on top of existing platforms, we can simply modify the layer that needs to be modified in orderto support the feature. We can also add the APIs on the types they logically belong to instead ofhaving to worry about whether that type has already shipped in other platforms.
Adding new APIs in .NET Core isn’t a statement whether they will go into the .NET Standard butour goal for .NET Standard is to create and maintain consistency between the .NET platforms. Sonew members on types that are already part of the standard will be automatically considered whenthe standard is updated.
As a library author, what should I do now?As a library author, you should consider switching to .NET Standard because it will replace PortableClass Libraries for targeting multiple .NET platforms.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
In case of .NET Standard 1.x the set of available APIs is very similar to PCLs. But .NET Standard 2.xwill have a significantly bigger API set and will also allow you to depend on libraries targeting .NETFramework.
The key differences between PCLs and .NET Standard are:
Platform tie-in. One challenge with PCLs is that while you target multiple platforms, it’s stilla specific set. This is especially true for NuGet packages as you have to list the platforms inthe lib folder name, e.g. portable-net45+win8. This causes issues when new platformsshow up that support the same APIs. .NET Standard doesn’t have this problem because youtarget a version of the standard which doesn’t include any platform information, e.g.netstandard1.4.
Platform availability. PCLs currently support a wider range of platforms and not allprofiles have a corresponding .NET Standard version. Take a look at the documentation formore details.
Library availability. PCLs are designed to enforce that you cannot take dependencies onAPIs and libraries that the selected platforms will not be able to run. Thus, PCL projects willonly allow you to reference other PCLs that target a superset of the platforms your PCL istargeting. .NET Standard is similar, but it additionally allows referencing .NET Frameworkbinaries, which are the de facto exchange currency in the library ecosystem. Thus, with .NETStandard 2.0 you’ll have access to a much larger set of libraries.
In order to make an informed decision, I suggest you:
1. Use API Port to see how compatible your code base is with the various versions of .NET
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
Standard.
2. Look at the .NET Standard documentation to ensure you can reach the platforms that areimportant to you.
For example, if you want to know whether you should wait for .NET Standard 2.0 you can checkagainst both, .NET Standard 1.6 and .NET Standard 2.0 by downloading the API Port command linetool and run it against your libraries like so:
> apiport analyze -f C:\src\mylibs\ -t ".NET Standard,Version=1.6"^ -t ".NET Standard,Version=2.0"
Note: .NET Standard 2.0 is still work in progress and therefore API availability is subject to change.I also suggest that you watch out for the APIs that are available in .NET Standard 1.6 but areremoved from .NET Standard 2.0.
SummaryWe’ve created .NET Standard so that sharing and re-using code between multiple .NET platformsbecomes much easier.
With .NET Standard 2.0, we’re focusing on compatibility. In order to support .NET Standard 2.0 in
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
.NET Core and UWP, we’ll be extending these platforms to include many more of the existing APIs.This also includes a compatibility shim that allows referencing binaries that were compiled againstthe .NET Framework.
Moving forward, we recommend that you use .NET Standard instead of Portable Class Libraries.The tooling for targeting .NET Standard 2.0 will ship in the same timeframe as the upcomingrelease of Visual Studio, code-named “Dev 15”. You’ll reference .NET Standard as a NuGet package.It will have first class support from Visual Studio, VS Code as well as Xamarin Studio.
You can follow our progress via our new dotnet/standard GitHub repository.
Please let us know what you think!
.NET Core .net framework bcl nuget open source
portable class libraries xamarin
Tags
Join the conversationAdd Comment
11 months agoJ
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoJ
9 months agoHamed
9 months agojoe
11 months agoMike-EEE
https://github.com/dotnet/standard
This link is broken by the way
Try again
It works, thanks!
what’s the meaning of your comment ?!
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agojarenduan
11 months agoMike-EEE
Wow. quite the fantastic post, as always.
Looks like this will greatly assist in getting .NET back into the browser via
WebAssembly — or maybe even transpiled JavaScript? — as well, if I am not
mistaken.
(For those who have not voted yet:
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio-
2015/suggestions/10027638-create-a-ubiquitous-net-client-application-develo )
Thank you for bringing quality developer engagement into our ecosystem, Sir
Immo!
It just occurs to me that we can use Unity as a cross-platform client
solution if Unity implements .NET Standard. Building data services by
traditional class library, with the UI components in Unity 2D, it is possible to
combine them in enterprise development. Add Unity visual effects are way
better than XAML, and has better hardware acceleration support.
Definitely worth a consideration now. I checked out this very
scenario last year around this time and the major roadblock I
found were that Unity was using a .NET 3.5 API. It was recently
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike
announced that they upgraded to 4.6, so that is no longer a blocking
issue.
However, you still have to account for the UI components and
framework. Unity is very much a gaming platform and their
UI/menuing system is completely different from WPF/LOB
applications. Additionally, Unity’s integration with .NET is very “un-
.NET” in how it goes about introducing its aspects into POCO’s (pretty
major, IMO) and also its naming guidelines (minor).
So you could definitely use .NET to interface with Unity and build
applications that way, but if it isn’t a game, it will be a very “un-.NET”
experience.
Still, it does manage to work in a web page via OpenGL, which is what
JSIL/CSHTML use (and MSFT SHOULD be doing ), which technically
makes it the closest ubiquitous .NET solution available ATM if you can
deal with the friction points above.
Getting Microsoft to add 2D graphical library to cross
platform .NET core is a key stepping point, a basis for XAML to
use it as a rendering surface… A way to look forward… Asking
for existing Silverlight or WPF “conversion” or a “bridge”
solution into HTML, may be not the right question to ask.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMartin
Both Silverlight or WPF are large code base… Who’s original
teams may not be in the company. Unlikely Microsoft would
grow these two code bases.
However, be more willing to invest in this new thing… .NET
Core… Again, cross platform 2D graphical rendering surface …
With a way to bind to WebGL
This looks really nic, but would you please also unifyhaving either WPF or
HTML as the UI interface language. The final goal should be to have one base class
core and one UI core which is then “translated” into the respective platform. Having
Xamarin for iOS/Android, UWP for .NET core and WPF for Windows does we do
not get rid of different UI languages. I really hope that what is shown above is only
valid for one of the next release and then finally all ends up in a final unified UI
solution. Of course the might be differences on different platforms, but these
difference shoudl be handles with different layouts and not with different UI
approaches.
If you ask me, if would simply assimilate Xamarin into WPF, write a renderer for
Windows, for .NET core and for iOS/Android an let Xamarin (at least it’s name die).
I’m currentlx reading the book from Adam Nathan WPF Unleashed, and reading
things like the WrapPanel is named WrapPanel in WPF but not in Windows Store
Apps, the ScrollViewer is able to zooming Windows Store Apps , but not in WPF
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoJosh McFadden
really really annoys me.
So my final question is, is WPF still of interest for you? Or would’t it be better to
simply leave the path of WPF and switch everything to HTML. Don’t get me wrong,
I really like WPF, more than HTML, but having different techniques for the same
result on the same platform or on other platforms when talking about unifying
things is not very believable to me and my colleagues, as well as our customers.
The problem with HTML/JS is that it is completely incompatible with
.NET, so you end up with two disparate, incompatible code bases, which is
incredibly expensive both in cost and in time. Developers are having to
develop, manage, and maintain 2 different code bases, and unfortunately this
has been the “guidance” of the .NET team since Silverlight was put to death
over five years ago.
There are 4500 votes in the uservoice above, which are basically asking for
the same thing as what Silverlight was: .NET that works in the client-side
browser process. It is nothing short of remarkable that so many .NET
developers have been asking for .NET in a browser yet “leadership”
continues to ignore their wishes, and would rather .NET developers continue
to work in two different, incompatible code bases and languages, each with
their own set of defects and (EXPENSIVE) cost concerns.
Please, take UWP (or rather, WPF), make it cross platform so that it works
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoJosh McFadden
11 months agoanthony
with iOS, Droid, Windows, AND THE WEB, and do away with Xamarin.Forms.
I am also 100% in agreement to reinstate the WPF API, as UWP’s API and
especially Xaml system is a terrible, terrible joke. What’s great about UWP is
its Windows Store integration. Everything else feels like it was developed by
an army of interns.
Please Microsoft: unite the .NET ecosystem, do away with “web” and “native”
developers, and purge the scourge of JavaScript that is infecting our code
bases! A .NET developer should simply be that, with their skillset transferable
to any platform, web or otherwise.
And in case anyone is wondering, the ask here is not for another
“installable plugin” like Silverlight, but a .NET development paradigm
that operates in 100% HTML5-compliant resources and artifacts. Check
out http://jsil.org/ for a little taste. That is a project run by some lone,
genius developer, when really it should have been the efforts of an
entire Microsoft division, rather than pointing us to the heIIscape that
is HTML5 and JavaScript!
Or, get some ideas from here: http://www.cshtml5.com
Awesome project!
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMarco Murray
Indeed, CSHTML5 is based on JSIL. I am in agreement
here. Truly incredulous that this wizkid developer did the
work of an entire MS group. Imagine if they had focused
their resources on doing the right thing with .NET back in
2011 and made it work in a browser in a HTML5-
compliant manner, rather than forcing us to use
completely different programming languages in
JavaScript and .NET that are unable to leverage and
share code between the two sides.
Now for every .NET solution that needs to work on the
web, we have .NET written in C#\F# for server-side code
and the web written in JavaScript code, with each project
being unable to share code between the other. We are
forced to spend time fixing bugs in each set of code,
while also learning all the particulars of each
development scenario, practically doubling development
costs.
The lack of innovation and complacency towards
inefficient practices here is appalling.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoChris Stevenson
11 months agoRoger J. Wilco
11 months agoMarco Murray
Something like Fable? https://fable-compiler.github.io/
System.Xaml is the most requested feature on .NET Core’s repo right
now and it continues to be ignored.
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/5766
They don’t care.
It has my upvote. Even in this thread they seem more willing to
talk about JSON, a non-Microsoft technology, rather than one that
was created by Microsoft and is loved by more Microsoft developers
than practically any other technology in Microsoft’s history. In fact
Xaml is used in every group in Microsoft with the exception of the
asp.net group and somehow this factor has managed to be an
inexplicable reason to shutter or suppress the growth and adoption of
Xaml, despite the outcry and demand of its own developers.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoaL
Why ask for feedback or say you listen to feedback when you do not
listen to the most obvious and popular requests, Microsoft?
> Why ask for feedback or say you listen to feedback when
you do not listen to the most obvious and popular requests,
Microsoft?
We do listen to feedback but we prioritize based on the overall
customer base and needs. It’s not that we don’t care about
System.Xaml, but it’s current absence from .NET Core isn’t the
biggest problem our customers are hitting. It’s the large
number of small differences in the BCL that prevent most
people’s code from working. FYI, System.Xaml isn’t used very
highly on NuGet. That’s not to say that System.Xaml isn’t used a
lot — it’s just an indicator that isn’t used very much outside
from WPF and WF, neither of which are a cross-platform
scenario right now.
you cant use nuget as the only metric for use.. XAML is
not cross platform because you’ve chosen to make it
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike-EEE
cross platform. You’re making a circular argument here,
is not a priority to make cross platform because its not
used a lot in cross platform development. if XAML was
more widely available it would be used more, as
indicated by the numerous votes this issue has gotten
Being a front end technology, it’s not going to be very
visible on nuget, but it is still used a lot by, if not the
majority of, windows lob and app developers.
+1 to aL here. I hate to be the squeaky wheel here, Immo.
You’re still my hero, haha. But it definitely feels like you
won’t give Xaml a chance, or are tying one hand behind
its back and saying “it can’t fight.” NuGet is a terrible
metric for the reasons stated. Further (and probably
more damaging), it really continues to be pigeon-holed
into a UI/front-end technology when in fact it can be
used for so much more. UWP’s take on it — as many
others have said — have only further damaged its brand,
value, and perception.
Finally, you mention below that JSON is used across the
industry, while Xaml is used across all of MICROSOFT,
with the exception of the web groups (and I am in total
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoChad Pesterwick
agreement that they should be using it, too!). Where is
the love for your own popular (and powerful)
technology? It seems you would protect the MSFT
investments FIRST, then outside considerations. The
developers that have spent a decade or more with your
constantly evolving technologies are the ones that are
suffering and being punished for it here, and that truly
seems backwards.
I will close here by mentioning that the System.Xaml vote
is a few shy away from breaking 100, and there isn’t a
single GitHub metric that you can point to that matches
that, not by a long shot (closest is 17 as of this morning).
Please consider listening to and rewarding the
developers and customers who have been with you the
longest, and who also understand and appreciate your
own technology as you do… maybe even a little more.
> … WPF and WF, neither of which are a cross-platform
scenario right now.
And who’s fault is this again, exactly? This is certainly not
due to lack of requests, votes, submitted GitHub issues,
and even demands from your faithful flock, but more so
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike-EEE
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
seems like a concerted effort to simply ignore their
persistent, obvious, and repeated wishes for a relevant
.NET. One that features the foundational frameworks that
have made .NET great thus far. Your GitHub and
UserVoices are becoming wastelands where good ideas
go to die; you simply do not listen to them.
Correction, the System.Xaml vote is now *over* 100
votes. Thank you to all who have shown their
support!!!
To be clear, I’m not saying that System.Xaml cannot or
shouldn’t be cross-platform. What I am saying is that
System.Xaml isn’t very useful outside of WPF and WF,
and NuGet is a sensible proxy metric for that statement.
Of course, System.Xaml could be made meaningful
outside of the UI realm, but that’s a secondary step. I’d
rather use our resources RIGHT NOW to make the
foundational pieces work well and complete. Besides, by
having a converged base, porting higher-level
components, such as System.Xaml becomes much easier
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoaL
9 months agoMarco Murray
components, such as System.Xaml becomes much easier
as well.
So it’s not an either-or statement; it’s a statement of
order of execution.
>NuGet is a sensible proxy metric for that statement.
in my opinion it is not. For me this is like saying there is
not a lot of html in npm, therefor html is not a commonly
used technology. Yes, XAML is mostly used by ui, but
there are a lot of ui out there
> Yes, XAML is mostly used by ui, but there are a lot of
ui out there
+1 to aL here. Not just that, but lots of **applications**
out here. Which makes this statement by Immo especially
alarming:
> What I am saying is that System.Xaml isn’t very useful
outside of WPF and WF.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
8 months agoMac
XAML stands for eXtendible **Application** Markup
Language. However, what seems to be baked in the
minds of anyone who has the power to pull the trigger
on this issue over there is that XAML is simply for UI.
With Xaml, you can define your **applications** in an
expressive and powerful manner. Not just UI. There is a
whole serialization engine behind Xaml that seems to be
willfully overlooked by MSFT management. This same
powerful serialization engine is why you are seeing many
ask for it in different offerings and solutions — MSBuild
being one of them (which, too, is being ignored despite a
great deal of interest and upvotes).
As for the rest of your statements, I have been around
enough project manager parlance to know when we are
being given the runaround. I will hold this to your word
that you will give this issue a fair look when
.NETStandard2.0 has been given the opportunity to
surface — something a .NET Core System.Xaml does not
seem to enjoy ATM.
Why not follow the JSON.NET lead and write an open
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
8 months agoMike-EEE
11 months agoHannes Danzl
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
source XAML implementation that runs on .NET Standard
2.0?
Haha Mac, if Immo is to believed, that won’t be necessary
as that is on its way from MSFT after the dust settles from
.NET Standard 2.0. So why bother doing all that work if
MSFT will be doing anyways after .NET Standard 2.0?
Additionally, there’s OmniXaml:
https://github.com/SuperJMN/OmniXAML/
That’s great. I’d like to see JSON serialization / deserialization in this as it is
more or less a standard data format for modern cross platform development. I can
see that the serializer is being considered an extension, but I believe JSON handling
should be part of the the core…
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoHannes Danzl
11 months agoMarco Murray
Today, the best library for dealing with JSON is JSON.NET. But by
adding it to the .NET Standard we’d do the community a disservice. What
matters is that the JSON support is widely available. And James, the author of
JSON.NET, does a great job making sure that JSON.NET is available
everywhere. His ability to do this successfully is a function of how hard it is
for him to make changes. The best way to do this is by creating a library that
targets .NET Standard because it can be updated independently from the
standard itself and everyone immediately benefits.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t provide some built-in
JSON support. We’ve talked with James about this in the past and I believe
there is a lot of opportunity for us to collaborate with him on an even more
performant way to provide JSON support in .NET. However, we’re very
interested in doing this with him rather than just building “another”
JSON.NET. We want a strong ecosystem for .NET, but this can only happen if
we embrace libraries based on merit, rather than by who wrote it. That’s what
open source is all about.
Great repsonse Immo. I like the consideration behind it and it
makes perfect sense from that point of view.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoaL
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
Seems like developers are asking for built-in Xaml support as
noted above, as well. Xaml is far superior to JSON as a serialization
mechanism, and is a Microsoft technology. Will you not support your
own inventions?
.NET from the get-go has set on open formats for exchange.
Back in the early 2000s that was XML. In today’s world of
RESTful services the de facto format is JSON. To me, it’s not an
either-or. Just because we have JSON doesn’t mean we can’t
have Xaml. But from a prioritization stand point, JSON is much
more urgent because it’s used across the industry and thus
relevant to a much larger .NET customer base.
I’d love to see standard interfaces for json serialization that json.net
and others implement. there are other json serializers out there, like Jil
and service stack, that don’t get the attention they deserve.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoaL
11 months agoDmitriy Krasnikov
Interesting. What would these interfaces provide that a
generic data pipeline (such as Streams) wouldn’t achieve?
Besides having a common interface for doing the actual
serialization/deserialization(that people usually end up
defining them selves in every project), they could include
stuff for setting names of json properties or otherwise
customizing the serialization process. Similar to how data
annotations provide an abstract way to annotate classes
for ui that then can be used by different implementations
While JSON library is great. This is not a full story of serialization. It
can certainly be more standard. The fact that he insists on putting
$type as first element of serialized object and such, (as an aside the
whole type handling of json need more thought work). But his
json.schema is a commercial product. And while I don’t mind paying,
putting my projects in OpenSource if they use it is a no go from the
start. I think Microsoft can certainly make it less painful to rely on third
party to what became a most used feature in web development API.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoJosh McFadden
11 months agoharrydev
No silly $type, $schema or other arbitrary, polluting artifacts
in Xaml. The POCO class definition is the schema, the way God
intended. Why developers prefer more arcane serialization
formats — and Microsoft continues to enable them despite
having created a better one — is apparently way beyond my
pay grade.
The problem as an library author with targetting .NET Standard is that this
simply isn’t available for a lot of consumers yet. So we can’t just move to .NET
Standard, there are lots of issues with the way targetting .NET Standard only works
in that you have to specify all dependencies which then end up being referenced in
a scenario where these really not be referenced since they are part of the
framework. There really needs to be better docs around nuget package authoring
and targetting both .NET Standard, PCL, frameworks etc. at the same time, since
.NET standard simply isn’t enough.
I have yet, to author a simple package with only system.runtime dependencies
without having to list all pcl targets, frameworks and .net standard, otherwise some
users can’t since .net standard targetting simply isn’t working e.g. 1.67.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoAmir Iftikhar
11 months agoKarl
Agreed on all fronts. That’s what .NET Standard 2.0 is about: more
compatibility and wider platform support. From a tooling experience side, it
should feel very similar to .NET Framework, except that the framework itself is
referenced as a NuGet package. It might not be a single package, but it will
certainly not be the 30+ packages that it is today. .NET Standard is much
larger than just System.Runtime.
It clarified the view of .Net for me.
Holy moly! This is getting all so confusing for a gent like me. There are too
many Cores and Foundations and Standards and Frameworks. I am losing sight of
the big picture because there is just so much to look at now! I yearn for the days of
simple .NET, when little old me could understand so much of it without being
buried up to my ears.
– Karl
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoDev
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
Your criticism of our naming is duly noted. There is certainly room for
improvement. However, to a certain extent I also think some part of the
complexity is inherent to being a cross-platform technology. We’ll try our
best to make this as easy is possible, but we can’t fully hide the fact that
libraries may run on different operating systems. We believe that .NET
Standard is large step forward, but I also think we’ll need to invest in more
tooling to help developers to reason about the differences.
If you have specific questions or areas of confusion, please let me know. I’m
more than happy to explain or simplify.
And what is DNX again? Is it dead already?
DNX was many things at once. I assume you’re referring to the concept
of having a shared framework that your app runs on, rather than having
your app deploy the runtime and framework itself. Our tooling simply
handles this by building a .NET Core application and not using the self-
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoDev
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoMgSm88
contained option.
I was mostly confused about naming changes. You guys go great
lengths to avoid porting time-tested tech from .NET Framework!
That’s actually the number one thing that .NET Standard 2.0
achieves: it brings in more of the existing tech from .NET
Framework, which, via our compat shim, also extends to 3rd
party libraries.
– As you said, .NET Core changed the way reflection worked. Does that
mean that you now need to make breaking changes to .NET Core to get reflection
back in line with how it works in .NET Standard?
– Why is Phone Silverlight supported here but not browser-Silverlight?
– I don’t understand why .NET Framework and Xamarin continue to exist in this new
model. It makes it super-confusing. I thought the whole point of .NET Core was a
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
cross-platform .NET that will eventually subsume Mono and .NET Framework once
its fully developed.
You guys need to take a step back and take a serious look at this solution. This is a
14-page document and after reading it cover to cover I still barely understand what
the changes are or why. Is this really the story you want to be presenting to devs
about your platform? I think it makes it a lot more likely that they’ll leave for less
muddy waters elsewhere. Why is it that .NET Core cannot become the only .NET
and be an upgrade path for .NET Framework / Xamarin? Having a gaggle of
different .NET-something or others is a total mess.
> Does that mean that you now need to make breaking changes to
.NET Core to get reflection back in line with how it works in .NET Standard?
No. The reason being that when we created the API shape we had to be able
to run on .NET Framework. Thus, we created the different shape partially by
subsetting and partially by adding some new APIs (such as TypeInfo). .NET
Standard 2.0 reflection will simply look as .NET Framework does today, which
is a strict superset of .NET Core today.
> Why is Phone Silverlight supported here but not browser-Silverlight?
Because Phone Silverlight is newer and thus has more APIs than the regular
Silverlight.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
> I don’t understand why .NET Framework and Xamarin continue to exist in
this new model. It makes it super-confusing. I thought the whole point of
.NET Core was a cross-platform .NET that will eventually subsume Mono and
.NET Framework once its fully developed.
.NET Core is currently not large enough in order to subsume all the scenarios
that you can realize with .NET Framework and Xamarin today. My personal
hope is that we can grow .NET Core enough to be able to do that because
that would mean having a unified implementation.
However, even in that world you need some concept of a platform specific
“distribution” of .NET Core. For example, both UWP as well as Xamarin
include APIs that are outside of .NET and are specific to the operating system.
In UWP that’s WinRT and in Xamarin’s case these are the iOS and Android
bindings. If you want to produce a component like Xamarin Forms (which is
an abstraction over the platform-specific UI stacks) you still need a way to
target a operating system. I’d say the easiest way to model this by having
specific versions of .NET. In order to make targeting them all approachable,
we’ve added .NET Standard.
Let me try to said it differently: .NET is about giving you the most productive
environment for a given user experience. And .NET Standard provides the
vocabulary (i.e. types) that allow you provide components and abstractions
that can work across many .NET user experiences.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoFallon
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoandricDu
I have faith that we’ll get there, but right now, even though I really love Core,
it’s a MAJOR productivity killer.
We have a customer that’s a Mac & Linux shop using Node, and would jump at the
chance to use core, but at this point, we just can’t recommend it for anything other
than proof of concept play things.
The advantages of C# over Javascript are massive, and IMO, that’s an
understatement!
It’s imperative that MS gets this right as soon as possible.
We wholeheartedly agree! Thanks for your patience. The good news is
that most of our time is currently spend on .NET Core and making it
implement .NET Standard 2.0, which we believe to capture the essence of
.NET productivity. This includes having the APIs you know & love or the
compatibility with existing .NET Framework libraries.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoLucas Trzesniewski
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoYort
Thanks for all your work. Those of us deep in the Java world are
also starting to take notice.
Throwing PlatformNotSupportedException when you want to compile a
regex is nonsense: you have a perfectly valid interpreted implementation already,
just use that. I don’t want to check if adding the RegexOptions.Compiled flag will
make my app explode or not every time, just ignore the flag entirely if it’s not
supported – it’s a pure optimization without change in behavior after all.
We generally prefer emulation over throwing exceptions. Let me look
into this, but AFAIK there was a reason why settled on throwing.
And this is how we end up with unexpected and awkward to solve
perf problems like this;
https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/10470
https://github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/968
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
I know I’ll lose this argument, but I would personally *hugely* prefer
that members that don’t ‘work’ on all platforms are not available by
default *at design time*. There should be extra hoops to jumps
through to call those members so you know at the time you write the
code that it will only work on platform x/y rather than being lulled into
the pit of failure. This is one reason I still prefer PCLs. Yes it is
inconvenient, but far less so than runtime errors in environments you
didn’t/couldn’t test on.
> I know I’ll lose this argument, but I would personally
*hugely* prefer that members that don’t ‘work’ on all platforms
are not available by default *at design time*.
That’s our general approach. However, if you think about it: you
can’t make type members (e.g. methods, properties, etc)
additive. The only thing you can make additive are types, as two
different types can live in separate assemblies but we don’t
have a mechanism to split a single type across two different
assemblies. That’s why larger technologies, such as registry
behave exactly as you describe: they aren’t available by default,
but you can add them.
Moving forward, we try to avoid creating types where only
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
9 months agoTom
11 months agoYort
11 months agoMike-EEE
parts of it work everywhere. But as always, there will be cases
where we couldn’t predict the future and are forced to throw.
My hope is that we can provide design-time tooling to help
with this.
Simply use extension methods and put those methods
that are not available on all platforms into separate
assemblies. There are so many possibilities to inject or
attach platform specifics to a common functionality. It’s all
about architecture and the features that C# gives us
already.
PS: Even if I respectfully disagree with some decisions, I appreciate
all the hard work and the thinking that come out of the MS and .Net
teams.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoken_swyfft
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
+1!!!
Not exactly an easy problem to solve, any step of the way.
That said, I would also like to echo Lucas’ concern. Throwing on
unsupported functionality seems like a nightmare. Simply not
having the API available to code with (as we have had with
PCLs to date) seems much more natural. It’s a pain, but much
less than having to code and then blow up once you run the
code.
If there is some awesome magic sauce you can apply to it
during development (as mentioned) then that might help.
Guess it would have to come down to developer experience, as
always. It just seems that throwing an exception during
runtime rather than catching something during development
time is a bad way to go. As long as that doesn’t happen, we
good.
Please tell me that this is different from this: https://xkcd.com/927/
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike-EEE
11 months agoDTA
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoDTA
I’m very much aware of that challenge and I’ve talked about it here:
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2014/12/04/introducing-net-
core/#relationship
This has to be the comment of the year.
Any plan to standardize the C-API for embedding .NET?
Which C-API are you referring to?
Edit: I assume you’re referring to the CLR hosting APIs?
Exactly those CLR hosting APIs, right now there are 3 different APIs
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoDTA
for .NET Framework, .NET Core, Mono. This is very hard to maintain to
open-source projects.
The .NET Framework CLR host is COM based (and thus does
not work cross-plat) and it assumes the CLR is installed in a
well-known central location, which does not work for the .NET
Core CoreCLR runtime. The CoreCLR hosting API are 4 plain C
methods, same for both Windows and Unix:
https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/coreclr/hosts
/inc/coreclrhost.h
.NET Native currently doesn’t have hosting APIs but we expect
that we’ll eventually add them and align them with the ones
from CoreCLR.
Mono currently has a very different set of hosting APIs and
provides many knobs for influencing runtime behavior.
So currently we don’t have a converged hosting API. If we were
to add them, which scenarios would you like to see handled the
most? Are the CoreCLR ones enough?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoLuke Stratman
I’m definitely not qualified to answer if CoreCLR C-API is
enough, but Luke Stratman may be:
https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet/issues/96#issue
comment-234818085
I can’t speak for everyone’s usage scenarios, obviously,
but the projects that I am working on focus on initializing
the CLR in other runtime processes to enable cross-
language interaction with .NET code. Specifically, Node.js
(https://github.com/tjanczuk/edge) and Python
(https://github.com/pythonnet/pythonnet). For these
usages, the hosting APIs from CoreCLR are sufficient to
do what we need.
One thing that would be useful for CoreCLR specifically is
to add a shared API method to libhostpolicy specific to
simply spinning up the CLR. libhostpolicy’s
corehost_main method assumes that you are executing
an application, but for scenarios like mine (and I imagine
many others) where we are trying to embed the CLR in
other runtimes or applications, it would be useful to have
one method in libhostpolicy to call to spin up the CLR
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoJesse
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
and get a host handle and a domain ID. As it stands, we
are not using libhostpolicy at all and have to duplicate
about 95% of what’s in https://github.com/dotnet/core-
setup/blob/master/src/corehost/cli/hostpolicy.cpp#L18 in
order to accomplish the same thing. It’s certainly not a
world-ending problem, but having that extra method
would be convenient for CoreCLR embedding projects. I
plan on submitting an enhancement to the core-setup
project, but figured I’d leave this hear to facilitate
potential discussion.
“Separating portability from .NET core”
Doesn’t this create more fragmentation defeating the whole purpose you are trying
to solve?
I really feel this decision is going to cause more problems then it solves.
Not necessarily. I think we’ll converge our implementations over time
more and more. However, we still need a specification that allows forking to
occur without immediately resulting in massive amounts of incompatibilities.
That’s what .NET Standard brings to the table.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike S.
11 months agoMathew Kochekkan
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
Forking is vital for experimenting and innovation. I think we’ll spearhead
innovation in .NET Core as we planned and later add them to .NET Standard.
However, the key is later. This allows us to push the envelope, see whether
we like the result and then standardize. That’s similar to how other standards
with different parties work (e.g. C++ or POSIX).
When is Dev 15 slated to ship?
Not much information still regarding support for VB.NET in .net core and
asp.net core and for crating .net standard libraries. Any information regarding the
plans for VB.NET support will be welcome as I can take an informed decision
moving forward.
I didn’t mention any language (C#, VB, or F#) because all of the above
is transparent to the languages. From the compiler’s view point it’s merely
the set of APIs you can use. All languages will be able to target any version
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMathew Kochekkan
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoMathew Kochekkan
11 months agoKEN
of .NET Standard.
Thanks. I understand I can target .NET standard from all
languages. What i wanted to know was, what are the plans for
supporting creation of .NET Standard libraries and ASP.NET core
applications using VB.NET.
Gotcha. That’s not my area but I’ll forward the question.
Thank you.
Will Unity implement .NET Standard?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoqw
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoCraigAJohnson
Great question. We’re closely working with Unity. They are currently in
the middle of the moving to the latest version of Mono. Once that is
completed, they will also implement .NET Standard 2.0 (because Mono does).
How does it work on windows 10 v1607? there is just .net 4.6.2, is it means
we should wait for next version .net framework which support .net standard 1.6 and
2.0 or above?
.NET Framework 4.6.1 and all later versions will support .NET Standard
2.0. You can either target .NET Standard 1.4 today or you can wait for .NET
Standard 2.0. I recommend not using .NET Standard 1.5 or 1.6 because they
added APIs that .NET Standard 2.0 doesn’t support.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agosoftveda
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoqw
11 months agojarenduan
Very pleased to see AppDomain included!
Where is System.Data ? Is EF 7 considered part of the app model ?
EF will be a library that targets .NET Standard. So it will be available
everywhere but EF itself isn’t part of the standard.
Is it means that .net standard 2.0 already in former released .NET Framework
4.6.1 install package? or I have to install an update for .NET Framework 4.6.1?
I guess you could understand it as a yes. I think, to be more accurate,
netstandard2.0 is not “in” but “supported” in .Net Framework 4.6.1.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agojarenduan
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
One great thing of .Net Standard is its backwards compatibility, which means
a package targeting higher standard always can depends on a package targeting
lower(or same) standard. But introducing the breaking changes, this is not
guaranteed any more. I think this is serious, and we have two options:
1. Remove .Net Standard 1.5/1.6 or mark them outdated/deprecated immediately
and tell all libraries authors not to targeting them any more, and do anything
possible to keep backwards compatibility of .Net Standard now or in the future.
2. Face and accept “breaking changes” as a valid concept by establishing certain
packages dependencies management mechanism. For example, identify the
breaking change by the first number in package version, so everyone and the
tooling knows the LibA-2.x are not compatible with LibA-1.x. This might bring a lot
of updating/multi-targeting work for libraries authosrs, because they might have to
treat LibA-2.x and LibA-1.x as two different packages. Anyway, we have a standard
way to deal with breaking changes.
.Net Standard is evolving fast, and it’s highly possible that breaking changes in .Net
Standard‘s evolution are inevitable. We survive this time luckily, but how should we
do next time if we do nothing now?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months ago[[Matt]]
> One great thing of .Net Standard is its backwards compatibility, which
means a package targeting higher standard always can depends on a
package targeting lower(or same) standard. But introducing the breaking
changes, this is not guaranteed any more.
This breaking as a one-off thing to bootstrap adoption of .NET Standard. We
want folks to be able to use .NET Standard 2.0 because it’s much better
compat with the past, but in order to be viable it has to be implemented by
the platforms that you care about at the time we release. I don’t expect
breaking changes like this to occur moving forward.
Our product is built against .Net Framework 4.6.2, and requires
.Net Frameework 4.6.2 to be installed.
If we want our ‘next’ version to use .Net Core 2.0 does that mean we
will have to ask all our customers to revert to .Net 4.6.2?
Or would the release of .Net Core 2.0 co-inside with .Net Framework
vNext meaning we can urge them forward on to that one?
I think we would need .Net Core 2.0 because of our reliance on
AppDomains – see another comment of mine.
Matt
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months ago[[Matt]]
11 months agojarenduan
11 months agoFrans Lytzen
By “ask all our customers to revert to .Net 4.6.2?” I of course
meant ask all our customers to “revert to .Net 4.6.1?”
I still need to know whether this will break applications, if we
ship .Net Standard 2.0 apps on Servers with .Net Framework
4.6..2 Will this screw our customers?
Is there a way that can tailor my dependencies into just-enough
dependencies instead of referencing the full packages of a certain version of .Net
Standard.
I guess it would be best that there is tailor option when we release, maybe “dotnet
pack -tailor”?
I was just about to ask a similar question so rather than doing it
separately, I’d like to expand on this question if I may.
One of the supposed benefits of the way the original .Net Core was that it
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoAlexander.Sidorenko
“broke it into lots of smaller nuget packages” and you had to explicitly opt-in
to what you wanted. This meant that if you didn’t need, say, XML support
then you wouldn’t include that. The benefit of that was a lower memory
footprint which should vastly increase hosting density, given that most small
web sites and even micro services aren’t that heavily utilised.
I read somewhere that the minimum memory footprint of a website on the
full .Net framework is ~200mb, whereas with (the original) .Net Core you
should be able to get that down to ~11MB. This is a big deal in a world where
we are breaking applications apart into microservices.
If I read this article correctly, .Net Standard is a single thing that encompasses
a whole bunch of stuff, therefore forcing you to suffer that memory
footprint? Since it will only get bigger over time, does that mean that the goal
of minimising memory footprint by componentizing the framework is gone?
I am not wholly opposed to that, I can see the simplification benefit probably
outweighs the memory optimisation for 99% of people, but it would be good
to understand this better.
Or, am I completely missing how this actually works? Or is there something
in @jarenduan’s point where maybe some build-time analysis could be
done?
It works the different way. .NET Standard is deployed as thin
package – called reference package, it is small in size and have only
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoFrans Lytzen
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
API definitions.
If your code needs some package (ex. System.LINQ) it will be
referenced by project.json separately.
So .NET Standard is not bunch of packages bundled in single package,
it is just contract definition package.
This is my understanding of how it will work
I was hoping that would be the answer. If that is correct then
it *sounds like* jarenduan’s “tailor” option is in effect the
reality… ?
The answer Alexander.Sidorenko provided above is pretty close.
Think of .NET Standard as toolable specification, like a header file in
C++ that is delivered as a single NuGet package.
Each platform in turn decides how that specification is implemented
and delivered. For .NET Core, we have many packages today, but as I
hinted at in the post we’re likely to condense the number of packages.
Rather than forcing you guys to hand craft the list of dependencies in
a JSON file, we’ll provide tooling to tailor the dependencies your
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoFrans Lytzen
application has to deploy.
Virtually all platforms will implement .NET Standard as a set of
components not a not as a monolith, but we treat that as an
implementation-level concern which gives us more flexibility, including
static linking and submodule trimming (as we do it in .NET Native and
iOS). The benefit for you is that you’ve fewer things you have to
manage.
Forgive if this is a stupid question, but can you point to an explanation of the
difference between .Net Core and .Net Standard. Or, rather, “what is .Net Core”.
I’ve been developing on “.Net Core” since October 2015 and have some apps in
production, which use the .Net Core paradigms and ASP.Net Core but target the full
.Net Framework. I’ve also got some smaller services and a couple of smaller sites
running on the .Net Core tooling/paradigm/whatever and targeting netcoreapp and
netstandardxx as well as some internal libraries multi-targeting Net Standard and
Net4xx etc (which is a great developer experience btw).
But, despite that, I don’t think I could actually explain to someone what, exactly,
“.Net Core” is as opposed to what it’s not. Is there a concise explanation
somewhere?
PS That compatibility matrix you show in the blog post; It’s a really important matrix
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agojarenduan
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
and I have seen and used it before to build libraries. But it only seems to appear in
blog posts and is really hard to google and even harder to bing. It may be worth
giving it an official home and doing some SEO work on it
“.NET Core is a blazing fast, lightweight and modular platform for
creating web applications and services that run on Windows, Linux and Mac.
”
-https://www.microsoft.com/net/core/platform.
I understand you’re confusing, and sometimes people are using the two
words without distinctions.
When I start to confuse, I tell myself that .Net Core is a platform that
implements .NET Standard, which seems to help.
You can find the matrix in Github:
https://github.com/dotnet/standard/tree/master/docs/netstandard-20
.NET Core and .NET Standard are GitHub open projects, so a lot of progress
are going there. Docs are not organized well comparing to the MSDN
Library, and are hard to google.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoaL
11 months agoaL
.NET Framework, .NET Core, Xamarin, Mono, and Unit are concrete
implementation of .NET.
.NET Standard is a specification that covers which APIs a valid
implementation has to offer.
Think of .NET Standard as POSIX for .NET.
> we’ve defined .NET Standard as a single NuGet package.
Can you expand on this a bit more (perhaps that’s a different blog posts)
The goal for .net core and also a stated goal in general going forward has been that
modularity would be a key feature of the platform, you’d only use the things you
needed any not pull in a bunch of other stuff. How does this relate to that? will I
end up with the entire .net standard in my bin folder all the time if i make a
standalone deploy? will you have to rev the entire .net standard if a change is made
to the api surface of one library? what about changes that don’t change the api
surface, like performance updates or patches?
It’d just be sad if we end up in the same situation as we did with the bcl,
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoSrikant Krishna
11 months agoBabaka
a global thing that is difficult to change because its so big and shared across
everything on the machine.
The modularity and ability to make stand alone deployments is super
valuable, please don’t loose that
See my comment above.
Well to be honest, as with any complete overhaul, or brand new product, I’m
almost eager to try out version 1.1, never version 1.0.
Looks like there are a lot of moving pieces, but kudos to getting this
information/thought process out in the open.
For now, I’m still sticking to the .NET framework – but maybe in a year or so, I’ll start
porting over my stuff to Core.
I’ve lost any idea after 30-th page. Hey, are you sure you EXPLAIN
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoAlexander.Sidorenko
11 months agoJieke Zhu
something? I feel I become more confused. MS never was good in naming:
bedraggled word “Windows” you push everywhere despite it fits or not (hello,
WinRT!). Now “.NET” – tens of names hardly having something common except
“made by MS”. When you stop that circus and start naming things DIFFERENT?
Obvious “.NET Core” IS NOT .NET – we know “.NET” as a “Windows-only” huge
framework. “Core” is a different story. .NET Compact framework is absolutely
another world. But all that MESS is named “.NET” – MS out of fantasy???
And now you came with “standard”. Because MS itself tired of own “similar names”.
But your standard are useless until you say straight what is GOAL of .NET; You have
no idea what you want, mixing desktop and mobile worlds. Obvious that even if
you create thousand of standards it won’t help – your mess not in PC, your mess is
in head.
You might want to read this blog post more carefully It is not
complex thing – .NET STandard, they just try to unify API across all .NET
platforms
Finally I see someone saying the truth. They have no idea what they
want but pretend they do. Trying so hard to drive every follower crazy, they
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agowpkf
11 months agoYing
11 months agoaL
11 months agoKen Cenerelli
just don’t care. Whatever, I’m tired.
I am confused by the name and what exactly is supported by each
version.
Oh,BTW, there is .NET Micro Framework ..
My only understanding is that, .Net Standard is the new .Net Core ? And .Net
Core becomes one of the non-Core flavours?
.net core is the runtime and .net standard is the base class library
With .net standard, all the runtimes, .net framework, .net core and mono will
use the same base class library. .net core will stillb e its own thing (and
hopefully as it develops it will replace the other two)
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoLO
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoRobert
Thanks for the great summary. I feel like it clarified some things related to
the direction of ,NET.
What on earth is a “tooling story”?
Otherwise it’s great to see an attempt at unification and clarity.
I meant the approach people use for building reusable class libraries
with our tooling. For example, PCLs was a tooling story for building cross-
plaform .NET class libraries. The .NET Standard based approach is a different
story.
Will .NET Standard be fully supported in current Visual Studio versions or
only in the upcoming one?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoJohn Cavnar-Johnson
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
The fully-featured support will only be available in the upcoming
release. Since it’s a NuGet package you can probably use it with previous
versions, but some things might not work as expected (for instance, the
tooling will probably not let you reference a .NET Framework library from a
library targeting .NET Standard).
This article makes a lot more sense if you take the version numbers for .NET
Standard and Core and divide them all by 2. The 2.0 version of .NET Standard will
be the first reasonable target for a production codebase.
As a former customer I can’t blame you. Now that I work for Microsoft:
how dare you?
Seriously though, we think .NET Core 1.0 is quite usable today. It’s major
weakness is compatibility with existing code, and that’s what .NET Standard
2.0 and the upcoming version of .NET Core will address.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoDibran Mulder
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
Great post it really clears up the PCL and .NET standard discussion. I’m still
having some concerns though. Is it possible to expand the NuGet tooling to not
show packages that are not compatible for the selected projects? Sometimes I’m
trying to install a package but then its says, sorry can’t do. Your profile doesn’t
match with the selected NuGet package. If its not possible then please display for
what profiles the NuGet package is compatible. Well you get the point, the tooling
for NuGet packages doesn’t go well with the profiles.
Another thing which worries me more is Ahead of Time compilation for iOS. I was
able to use code with reflection in a shared PCL by Xamarin Android and Xamarin
iOS. Everything seemed fine after developing and testing my code on the iOS
simulator. However when I tried to run my code on an actual device all hell broke
loose. The Ahead of Time compilation caused that certain reflection code was not
executable and this caused runtime issues?! How are these reflection API’s available
for Xamarin iOS? This shouldn’t be possible right? I noticed that in the .NET
Standard library reflection is still available. I do not understand this. Reflection is
simply not available on Xamarin iOS since it requires JIT compilation. I know that
AOT compilation is not .NET’s default way of compiling but since you claim that
.NET Standard supports Xamarin, you implicitly claim that all API’s in the .NET
Standard lib are supported in Xamarin iOS, however this is not true. Can you please
clarify on this.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoDibran Mulder
Yes, the plan is to improve the NuGet tooling as well. Whether we’ll
hide packages that aren’t compatible is a different thing. Imagine a package
isn’t compatible due to the way your project is configured, i.e. your project
might be targeting a lower version of a .NET platform from what the package
requires. Hiding the package doesn’t help you discover that. It might be
better to let the package install, and fail the build with an actionable error
message, potentially providing a right-click-fix experience.
I’m not an expert on AOT for iOS, but AOT for Windows (AKA .NET Native)
certainly supports reflection. Of course, in order to allow for tree shaking the
linker has to know which APIs to maintain. In .NET Native you can configure
which metadata to keep. Generally speaking, reflection, including reflection
invoke, does not require a JIT. What does require a JIT is runtime code
generation using reflection emit. That’s why reflection is part of .NET
Standard while reflection emit is not.
Well there is more then hiding and showing of course. You can
display that the package isn’t applicable for the current profile for
instance. I’m sure you guys will figure it out in an intuitive manner. I’m
looking forward to the improvements.
Great to hear that the .NET Standard is fully compliant with AOT on
iOS. Does this also mean that when I have for instance
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMichael Taylor
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
System.Net.Http referenced in a PCL, I don’t have to reference it again
in my iOS project? Since the .net45 variant in my PCL will be replaced
with a .NET Standard one which actually works with AOT on iOS.
Look at this stack overflow question:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18669339/httpclient-execution-
runtime-error-executionengineexception-attempting-to-
jit/38992635#38992635
All I ask is that you separate out .net core, .net standard and full framework
in project templates. They aren’t interchangeable and people keep selecting the
wrong one because class library (.net core) shows up higher than class library in
project templates for some reason. When you add in class library (.net standard) it
will be really confusing. Especially sine core and standard mean the same thing to a
lot of people. Please consider moving all .net core templates to their own category
and the same for .net standard.
Yes, we will have separate templates for the reasons you’re mentioning.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoChristopher Barker
11 months agoLKeene
11 months agoAaron H
It has become a full-time job just keeping track of Microsoft’s changes.
Unfortunately, I don’t get paid for this overhead. I am over trying to keep up with
Microsoft’s, “oh, this is what we REALLY meant” planning style. Microsoft is at war
with itself trying to both trap and free developers at the same time. As talented as
Microsoft is, .Net Standard should not be the new standard but the plan all along.
So I can’t really congratulate Microsoft for racing to work on time only to arrive
without pants.
There are too many changes happening too quickly, even for this business.
The whole thing is incredibly confusing.
Please, build a universal XAML system for ALL clients including Web
Browser, XAML is a very powerful UI presentation technology, and C#+XAML is
much better than JS+HTML5/CSS3 for application development.
Currently, our team (and many others in different companies as I know) develop
applications for Windows Server(backend service), Windows Desktop, Windows 10
Store, Android, iOS and Web, so have to take skills of C#/Java/Object
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
C/HTML/JavaScript/CSS (actually many component libraries such as jQuery,
Angular, Bootstrap…), we need to implement the same business logic in 3 or 4
times(as well as bugs and maintenance…), You know the team is become bigger
and bigger, If MS can bring .net+XAML to all the client environment, I believe out
team will as smaller as 1/3 to 1/4.
And that is not the end of the story, we develop Windows desktop applications
(WPF), Windows Store Apps (UWP), and even we try to use Xamarin for
iOS/Android), but the XAML have different dialect cannot share XAML code
between them even they are all come from Microsoft, .net UI technology is
fragmented and developers are frustrated,.
Suggestion:
(1) Build a universal XAML system for Desktop/Windows 10 Store/Droid/IOS, this
step will not difficult and take many time, as all under Microsoft’s control, merge
different XAML dialects into one is good.
(2)Compile ..net + XAML to HTML/CSS + JavaScript ( or Html 5 Canvas + web
assembly in the future), this is a revolutionary technology and Microsoft will be
written into the annuals of history. Developers take Html + JS to develop web
applications for more than 20 years, Html2/3/4->Html5, CSS-CSS3, Javascript
version also upgraded, and many Javascript library appear and die, but the runtime
mode (HTML + script language) is not changed, If .Net +XAML application can
directly in web browser, I believe this will eventrually change Web development.
Plus one: Silverlight is really a good technology, but your Microsoft is give up it, it’s
a stupid decision.
*English is not my native language, I spend a lot of time to write this down, hope
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike-EEE
you will read it , thanks! *
Indeed, Aaron. Your English is great and the message is loud and clear,
sounding VERY MUCH like the long list of comments found in this vote:
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio-
2015/suggestions/10027638-create-a-ubiquitous-net-client-application-develo
Have you voted yet?
For every non-.NET language such as JavaScript that is introduced into a
.NET solution, the overall development costs are increased by said factor. As
you point out, in addition to the amount of code that you now have to
develop and maintain between these code bases, organizations are saddled
with the inconvenient and expensive task of finding non-.NET resources to
handle the incompatible .NET-language(s). This increases the team size by AT
LEAST 25%-33% as you mention. So, the expensive nature of this problem
does not just impact the amount of code, but also businesses’ bottom line in
terms of added overhead that is required to deal with two incompatible and
disparate code bases.
This also accounts for why organizations are slowly starting to adopt
JavaScript-only solutions and dropping .NET altogether, as JavaScript is truly
ubiquitous and can reach all the places that .NET can today as well as all the
places it can’t (the client browser). It doesn’t help that Microsoft is assisting
these efforts by creating and promoting the necessary tooling such as
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoAaron H
11 months agoanthony
VSCode that enables these organizations to do exactly that.
Thanks, Mike.
I have already read that vote in uservoice before, and I have voted it
with strong support.
I have strong Win32 programming background, I use Visual C++ to
learn develop Windows 3.1 programs since 1997, and use Delphi 6 to
develop Windows 95/98/2000 C/S applications in the year 2000. In
Delphi, there was a IntraWeb for develop web applications, it was
amazing compared to ASP/JSP at that period. I love strong-
typed/compile-to-native programming language for my work though
I still can write very long Javascript.
What I mean is, I hope C#/XAML can run everywhere, just like native
language such as C++/Object Pascal, write once, compile to different
target binary/IL. Single codebase can much reduce time and cost for
project team.
I could not agree more, Aaron. Microsoft has indeed a diamond in their
hands (C# + Xaml) and “compile for Web” would be something that will rock
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMike-EEE
11 months agoDave
developer’s world and bring back developers into MS tech in drones! As i
said above, look at the work these guys are doing here:
http://www.cshtml5.com Imagine if that project (or something similar) had the
power of Microsoft behind it…
And as you said, the cost to maintain 2 code bases, 2 teams etc is enormous!
At Microsoft: By compiling C# + Xaml to browser, you have a chance to
make history. Do not miss it…
*high five* Anthony. Much respect and agreement!!!
JSIL/CSHTML is indeed the path we should be on. Unfortunately, it
doesn’t allow for PCL support, which is what enables shared code
between client and server. So, you are ultimately still stuck with two
different code bases, even though they are both technically .NET.
Close, but no cigar. Otherwise I (and many others) would be all over it.
But like you said: imagine if MSFT was behind it. That problem (and
any others) would be but a distant, bad memory!
Can I suggest not to throw when you can’t compile a Regex? I mean, it’s only
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months ago[[Matt]]
11 months agoTzach
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
used to get an improvement in performance.
Your suggestion would be absolutely the wrong one for our kind of
products (not taking away from the fact that may be the right choice for
yours)
I guess we should get the ability to choose when we buy-in to a package
Hi, I love .Net Standard but I don’t understand .Net Core.
Why would you develop .Net Core when you already have Mono, which is more
stable, runs on more platforms and has a bigger API surface?
It seems that the only thing that .Net Core has going for it over Mono is it being
modular. Why then not work on improving Mono and making it modular instead of
doing all the effort on .Net Core? What am I missing here?
We’re working very closely with the folks on Mono and code is flowing
in both direction between Mono and .NET Framework/.NET Core. At this
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMarkus Weimer
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
point, we can’t simply take one over the other because each side has unique
features which makes it more suitable for certain tasks.
Thanks for the post. I have two follow-up questions coming from the Apache
REEF community, where we are trying to move to CoreCLR. .NET Standard 2.0
seems like a much more attractive target for that than CoreCLR 1.0.x. However:
(1) How does one begin to target .NET Standard 2.0 today with a .NET Framework
code base? Given that both Mono and .NET 4.6.1 support it, it should technically be
feasible even before Dev15, right?
(2) What does this mean for the (few) libraries that painstakingly ported to CoreCLR
1.0? Do they have to add a build for .NET Standard 2.0 to be consumable by a .NET
Standard 2.0 project? Or is that addressed by the compatibility shim mentioned
above? I assume that’s a way of convincing the compiler / runtime that a library is
in fact .NET Standard compliant when it doesn’t advertise it?
At this point .NET Standard 2.0 isn’t available yet. We’re working on
providing bits and we’ll announced on this blog when a preview is available.
Generally speaking libraries compiled against .NET Core today will work just
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoDavid Cuccia
6 months agoLeonardo Pignataro
fine against .NET Standard 2.0. The only caveat is the very small number of
APIs that were part of .NET Standard 1.5. and 1.6. that we removed.
https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/netstandard-
20/netstandard-20-removals.md.
I’d like to chat more with you about supporting .NET Standard 2.0. Do you
mind contacting me via email? It’s immol at microsoft dot com. Thanks!
404 file not found on netstandard-20-removals.md linked above
It seems they took that decision back, and now .NET Standard
2.0 will in fact be a strict superset of 1.6, with. NET Framework
4.6.1 implementing it but throwing a runtime exception for
those “orphaned” APIs:
https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/netstand
ard-20/README.md#net-framework-461-supporting-net-
standard-20
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agogeocine
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months agoRalfs
I createa a .net core class library it uses netstandard 1.6 . Then I start to add
references like ef core 1.0 (including other libraries), it doesn’t work , however when
I change it to netcoreapp 1.0 it works. Based on this article will the netstandard 2.0
be able to support ef core and other libraries?
Not all libraries are supporting .NET Standard yet. It looks like EF is
compiled specifically for .NET Core and .NET Framework which is why you’re
able to use it from netcoreapp but not .NET Standard. We’re working with
library authors to make sure they can target .NET Standard 2.0, which
includes EF.
It would be nice to have System.Data classes in standard.
XML documents, schemas, (de)serializers etc. indeed are useful in their own way.
But so far there are no other classes, besides DataSet/DataTable,
for easy in-memory data and object organizing, manipulation and data save/restore
or exchange tasks.
In my opinion, System.Data is kind of fundamental namespace in .NET framework.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoBeej
3 months agoFredy Wenger
11 months ago[[Matt]]
We’ll have to use serializable collections (of collections (of generics( ….)) to replace
data rows, tables, relations.
Still having at very least, DataTable class intact, will save a lot of time.
+1! – still much love for ADO.Net, DataTable out here =)
+1 for DataTable (we have created a lot of tools based on Code to
DataTable)
Hi.
I’m trying hard to understand this but am really struggling. In particular the teasers
about AppDomain support
You say “If you want to look at the specific API set of .NET Standard 2.0, you can
take a look at the .NET Standard GitHub repository. ” but when I go there it’s just a
warrant and impossible to find any specific information. Like all Git stuff it is
designed around those contributing – not those trying to use it as a source of
information. I can’t tell you how much I hate it as a ‘source’ of documentation.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
11 months ago[[Matt]]
Can I user CreateInstance? I do not know. Will I be able to use CrateInstance? I don’t
know. How can I possibly decide to use .Net Core/Standard in our enterprise app? I
don’t know
Matt
Right now, the only way is to check out this folder on GitHub:
https://github.com/dotnet/standard/tree/master/netstandard/ref. I plan on
making it possible to browse .NET Standard via https://apisof.net.
Thanks, I had indeed found that but I’ve got no idea what, for
example,
‘public static object CreateInstance(System.Type type) { throw null; }’
means.
Is that just a placeholder implying it is/will be supported, or does it
mean that if I call it it will blow?
thx
Matt
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
10 months ago[[Matt]]
The ref folders contains what we call reference assemblies.
These are assemblies that are only used to compile against
(because .NET Standard itself isn’t runnable, as it’s just a
specification). However, C# doesn’t have such a concept. So in
order to compile these assemblies we simply have fake bodies.
> Is that just a placeholder implying it is/will be supported, or
does it mean that if I call it it will blow?
The body is meaningless in .NET Standard. It just means the API
is part of the .NET Standard specification. A given platform can
implement the API or throw PlatformNotSupportedException.
AFAIK all platforms will support CreateInstance(Type) and not
throw. Of course, for platforms that don’t use a JIT (such as
UWP/iOS) you need to have the metadata at runtime in order
to create the type, but it will generally work as expected.
Excellent, thanks
Matt
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoMgSm88
11 months agoAlessandro Pulvirenti
@ImmoLandwerth
> Because Phone Silverlight is newer and thus has more APIs than the regular
Silverlight.
This appears to be incorrect. The latest Phone Silverlight was based on Silverlight 4
and came out in 2010. Silverlight 5 came out in 2011. Not to mention, it is MUCH
more likely that enterprises have production apps based on desktop Silverlight
rather than Phone Silverlight.
Microsoft has started too late to support other platforms, and is now in
difficulty.
.NET Must have a common base (standard) on all platforms for many years.
Today there is the need that there is only one language for the user interface.
There are two possibilities:
1) XAML must be usable even in Mobile and Web;
2) HTML 6 (new version) that incorporates the XAML functions for the interface,
including animation, 3D etc.
The fact that you have to use a different technology for each environment has
meant that Microsoft has insignificant market shares in Mobile and Web Server.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoChris Woodward
11 months agoMichał Dudak
11 months agoJosh McFadden
If the resources are few and should be given priority in development, is due only to
the fact that Microsoft is very late compared to the technology evolves and not the
expected (as he waited in the cabinet).
It should be allowed to invest more resources assuming a lot of programmers.
Competition (Apple and Google) will not wait.
Since this replaces Portable Class Libraries, will tools like PEX be updated?
PEX was a really good tool potentially but the restrictions of PCLs made it limited.
Will .Net Standard lift some of those restrictions?
There’s one (at least ;)) thing I don’t understand here. Since UWP is one of
the application models of .NET Core, why is it shown separately on the Platform to
Standard mapping table?
Good catch. Isn’t .NET Core cross platform? Another idea rotting to
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
11 months agoEric Schneider
11 months agoProgrammer Sommer
death over at the UWP board:
https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/110705-dev-
platform/suggestions/7989744-make-universal-windows-platform-open-
source-and-cr
As bad as the .NET group is at getting around to Xaml, they are nowhere
near as bad as the UWP group, which is simply killing Microsoft with their
backwards, dated thinking and operations. That entire organization needs a
clean sweep!!!
If you currently using vb.net, your screwed, and they broke your ability to
support previous build. vb.net can no longer target .net core and .net 4.6.1
Also vb.net will not let you target .net standard at all.
This is complete BULLSHIT!
I pay good money for my MSDN subscription, looks like I have no reason to renew
now.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agojarenduan
10 months agoAndre.Ziegler
10 months agoAyman Abd El Halim
10 months agoAyman Abd El Halim
Hi! Thank you very much for informing and for answering the questions!
There is a little mistake:
In “What’s new in .NET Standard 2.0?” table 4.6.1 is mentioned twice:
.NET Framework → 4.5 4.5.1 4.6 4.6.1 4.6.2 vNext 4.6.1
That is intentional, and you get it now, right? It is the breaking change
we were discussing about above.
release 4.6.2 as recommend/important update for Win7/8.1 Systems and use
4.6.2 in Standard 2.0, so that older and wi10 1607 use the same .net versions
If .net4.6.1 mentioned in netstandard1.4 did not support APIs netcorecore1.0
support, how in netstandard2.0 it will support APIs that the newer version of
netcoreapp1.1 will support ?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoOgnyan
10 months agoLS
10 months agoMarco Murray
Also, when you said “As you can see, it’s quite clear that the vast
majority of class libraries on NuGet are targeting .NET Framework. However,
we know that a large number of these libraries are only >>>using APIs we’ll
expose in .NET Standard 2.0.<<<" doesn't that mean that .net framework has
already a higher netstandard than what was given to it from before ? Its
either you move back netcore1.0 to a lower netstandard or move .net
framework to a higher netstandard; but having .net framework 4.6.1 and
netcore1.1 be compatible while netcore1.0 is higher than .net framework 4.6.1
is extremely confusing!!!
Does anybody know if WF is going to end up in the Standard or not?
You probably have a better chance at winning every state lottery on the
same day.
Read above. They are actively trying to shutter/censor the more mature,
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoEric Winnington
10 months agoraulrw
10 months agowpkf
valuable, and superior Microsoft technologies in favor of the weaker, error-
prone web technologies that possess a fraction of functionality and
usefulness. Truly a sad day in Microsoft history. It used to mean something
to be a Microsoft developer. They once took pride in their technology. No
longer is this the case.
Have a look at CoreWF ( https://github.com/dmetzgar/corewf ). WF is
mostly ported. The team still needs to evaluate with .net standard 2.0 if the
DynamicActivity can be ported. Please add your voice in the github issues.
Jesus man, are you Sauron?, The Lord of The Rings? It’s possible to have just
one framework, with libraries in each device for that framework version? But now,
we have dozen of “frameworks” for the same version. Computers was made to do
the job instead of humans, then why we have to deal with all those libraries. You
don’t have that problem on Java, even when C# is much more powerful than Java, I
realize that.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agosssss
10 months agosssss
10 months agoJiping
All these names are confusing….. I thought “.NET Core” is the “Standard”
(minimal set (i.e. Core) of API that all platform should support).
I never heard of “.NET Standard” until today and it is already version 2.0…….
I think it’s time to stop all .NET development and go back to C++ only.
Microsoft, this means you.
Microsoft is correcting its “billing dollar mistake”.
When .Net 1.0 was released, I thought it was cross-platform, because it was another
JRE-like framework. Too disappointed, how come a VM machine is not cross-
platform, that’s why Mono came out for. But Microsoft keeps piling up Windows
platform specific APIs in .Net Framework, Mono team could catch up at all.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoRoman Uvarov
10 months agoCureos
10 months agoHamedM
10 months agoSmar Tass
I hope books about this will be release next day at least in electronic mode.
Otherwise not possible to keep up
I am porting a number of legacy libraries that make extensive use of the
ICloneable interface. Will ICloneable also be part of .NET Standard 2.0? If so,
in which NuGet package can I expect to find it?
Excellent news, finally, a good vision; encapsulate what varies.
I wish Windows developers stop the whole agile deployment of bug-ware and
Microsoft reclaims its past glory. I am working with Java in Linux these days and it’s
not much fun, I know it could be JavaScript which is MUCH worse, but I miss happy
C# days in Windows 7.
This smells of Bill… came back for a week to fix things again?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoCureos
10 months agoYegor
10 months agoNicolas R
10 months agoJoerg
Are there any .NET Standard 2.0 pre-release NuGet packages available
anywhere for those who want to test the applicability right now?
Does the article contradicts itself or I am missing something?
“Another key aspect is that the API availability in .NET Standard is very predictable:
higher version equals more APIs. ”
“In order to allow .NET Framework 4.6.1 to support .NET Standard 2.0, we had to
remove all the APIs from .NET Standard that were introduced in .NET Standard 1.5
and 1.6.”
Such a mess
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoMike-EEE
I still not get it: So all this efforts invested to make .Net cross X-platform, and
all we actually can run X-Platform is the back-end part of a web service and console
applications. It is clear MSFT need to do some ground-building work first, but we
need a reliable commitment that the client will follow some not-to-far day. Why
would someone use a language/framework exclusively for the back-end?
All the development gain at the server side is more than eaten up by the complete
lack of possibilities to share code and developer knowledge between front/backend.
The clock is ticking, and MSFT is losing projects to other technologies (read node.js
on the server) every day. And all those projects won’t come back. So please Micke-
EEE, continue to nag the hell out of them on all channels Until they give a a from
road-map and – for this time – stick to it.
By the way: MSFT just comes from ditching LightSwitch HTML. Two years after
selling it as a replacement to Silverlight devs at connect 2014. Know, they are selling
PowerApps as a replacement for LightSwitch HTML. Oops, they did it gain…
LOL @Joerg! I was about to post a link to the vote as a reply until you
mentioned my name, so you clearly have seen it! Now we just need
MSFT to actually acknowledge this and address it in a conference, which of
course we have Connect(); 2016 in about a month. I really (REALLY) hope
Connect() 2015 is the last time we see anyone from MSFT leadership stand on
stage and seriously suggest pairing a .NET backend with a JavaScript front
end. Talk about a very embarrassing moment. Right up there with Sinofsky
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
10 months agoMike.Hua
up on stage in Mix 2011 admitting that he worked on Clippy and then
proceeded to try to impress a room full of developers with moving sprites in
a web page (hint: the room was dead silent as you would expect).
You know what? I’ll go ahead and post the link anyways for those who scroll
all the way to the bottom, skipping all the good parts. Getting very close to
5,000 votes after 1 year of existence:
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio-
2015/suggestions/10027638-create-a-ubiquitous-net-client-application-develo
BTW, I am in agreement with you on PowerApps. What we need is a mix
between UWP and Xamarin, with WPF’s Xaml model. <3
I can not understand why Microsoft doesn’t provide the cross platform
desktop solutions for the developers. I think the cross platform solutions given out
by MS is not complete. I am very disappointed with that.
So I think that Java is the general trend of software development and the software
developers’ future.
From now on, I begin to like Java more and more. I have decided to use Java as the
major development language to replace .NET!
Good luck, .NET!
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
8 months ago21c-HK
6 months agoLeonardo Pignataro
8 months agocomponentes madrid canon
You need to update this blog post to make clear which information in it is
already out-of-date like the version table and the non-breaking change of .NET
Standard 2.0. I assumed this was fairly up-to-date information since this blog post is
less than 3 months old.
Same here. I actually saw your discussion with Immo on the github
issue tracking before reading this and then was left wondering which info
was the most up-to-date. Only way to know was to compare the dates here
and there, ugh…
Informamos que no atendemos averías de aparatos en periodo de garantía,
no somos servicio técnico oficial Siemens en Lahiguera, sino que ofrecemos
nuestros servicios para su reparación. Nuestros técnicos son expertos en la
reparación de electrodomésticos de todas las marcas del mercado, teniendo
especialistas para las principales marcas. Siguiendo nuestra política de calidad
nuestros técnicos están sometidos a continua formación y disponen de las
herramientas más avanzadas.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
8 months agoNaster
8 months agoImmo Landwerth [MSFT]
8 months agoPavel Biryukov
6 months agoLeonardo Pignataro
How and when we will be able to reference Net standard 1.6 DLL inside
UWP? Thx
Our plan is to update UWP so that it implements .NET Standard 2.0,
which means you’ll be able to reference .NET Standard 1.0 – .NET Standard
2.0 libraries from a UWP app.
removed from .NET Standard 2.0. link broken!
It no longer applies, see:
https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/netstandard-
20/README.md#net-framework-461-supporting-net-standard-20
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
3 months agoNetMage
8 months agoJosé Manuel Nieto Sánchez
7 months agoTim
Perhaps the article should be updated?
Argh, the command “dotnet pack” is say “Sequence contains no
elements” against a .NET Standard 1.2 (PCL). What’s the deal?
Hi, I was totally stocked about netstandard and managed to port almost
everything to it over the past 3 months. However, today I realized that the current
VS2015 msbuild does not support contentFiles (which we had to switch to). Now it
looks like I would need the ‘alpha’ msbuild from VS2017RC to be able to this. As I
write this, I am installing VS2017RC which I just read in a comment elsewhere will
mess up your VS2015 install. I’m getting stressed.
The vision behind the change is fantastic but implementation has been and
continues to be a nightmare. If this does not get resolved soon, we may have to
make a business decision to go back to PCLs from the past.
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
7 months ago[[Matt]]
6 months agoLeonardo Pignataro
5 months agoDaniel
3 months agoNetMage
The newest versions do not mess up 2015. At least for me in any case.
I disagree with most of the criticism in this comment section. It’s all too
complex? Well, supporting a dozen platforms can never be simple. The naming is
off? I can’t actually think of a better name for this than “.NET Standard”. To me, as a
library author, it seems MS is finally getting it right with .NET Standard. I do have to
agree with someone who said this should have been the way to go since the
beginning, PCLs now sound like a completely wrong decision. But, hey, anything is
clearer when in hindsight.
This link is now broken: ‘removed from .NET Standard 2.0’
https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/netstandard-20/netstandard-
20-removals.md
Now that .Net Standard 2.0 contains all APIs from .Net Standard 1.6, but
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
5 months agoStarbeamrainbowlabs
4 months agoJohn
also runs on .Net Framework 4.6.1, how can we find out what .Net Standard
2.0 API is not supported by .Net Framework 4.6.1?
I’m just really confused by the whole thing. Perhaps it would increase
adoption rate if the whole thing (.NET Core/Standard/UWP/Mono/multiple versions
of .NET in use concurrently) was explained simply?
I must say that Microsoft is making increasingly complicated and cluttering
their development platforms. Do you think developers should dedicate so much of
their work time to study .NET platform compatibility and all your changes your are
making so fast? Where is platform stability? Do you realize the stability is one of the
most valuable assets today including IT? Do you realize your unstable changes are
making Microsoft technologies unpredictable and the investments are risky? Do
you realize how much time developers must invest into studying all your every-
week changes in .NET standard, core, differences just to understand what is
Microsoft doing? I am sure we paid to focus on our work, we should study our
business domains we are working in and produce business code and not to spend
our time watching new webcasts about another x.y.z version of some new core-
standard Microsoft product change. Microsoft has always had tremendous power in
their integrated solutions, which saved so much time to developers who were able
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
4 months agoAaron H
work fast and integrate easily. This is the reason why we are paying for your
products as they were integrated, Microsoft saved our time not to study all those
changes, search the internet for tutorials for any package we should build as Linux
guys who spent so much time playing with their platform on low-level. It was the
biggest Microsoft power, integrated solutions, platforms and technologies but now
there is only mess when having different technologies, everything changing,
unstable products and platforms, unpredictable. Tell me why we should use
Microsoft products as we could move to Oracle, IBM or any other platform that is
providing multiplatform support already, is stable and not doing so many hectic
changes as Microsoft dev department. Do you think developers should spend all
their time just reading your articles about neverending changes just to be on track
with you? Do you think companies should pay developers for that time when
knowing Microsoft will changes it and they will have to reinvest?
Agreed!
Microsoft have making many incompatible .net runtimes, .net frameowrk,
silverlight, windows phone 7 runtime, windows phone 8/8.1 runtime,
windows 10 UWP, xamarin, .net core …. created many and abandon many…
Developers are frustrated to face so many incompatible runtimes.
Please take a look at java, there’s only 3: j2ee j2se, j2me, J2EE is a superset of
J2SE, J2SE is a superset of J2ME, so simple, what’s more, which did not
changed for almost 20 years!
More info about universal .net framework:
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
4 months agoAaron H
4 months agoMarek Pokorny
https://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio-
ide/suggestions/10027638-create-a-ubiquitous-net-client-application-develo
For the next major version of .net run-time, it’s possible that
Microsoft just create a single cross-platform .net framework (with
different distributions for different OSes), which supports build/run a
single application on windows desktop , linux, unix, windows store app
(UWP), android, iOS….
I will describe the experience of .NET team in a European bank where I work.
We have a rather large .NET team of around 30 people working in the Oracle /
Microsoft technologies, and what Microsoft shows in recent years is utter chaos. We
have developed an apps for internet banking when our .NET division implemented
Windows Phone apps and we spent a lot of time with them. Bank management
withdrew all WP apps a few months ago and wrote off the investment as a loss. The
local branch of Microsoft convinced us several years ago to integrate Silverlight into
our internal systems to support bank employees. We have invested the
development and again it is written off the investment as Silverlight is dead. We
started to use ASP.NET MVC and practically from version 1 to 5 continuously the
apps developed from the first version and rewrite them and update it with every
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
4 months ago
4 months ago
4 months ago
new version causing us increasing time to maintain them. Our work is already
barely tenable before management in comparison to the J2EE systems. For all those
reasons and many others I didn’t write about IT management has decided to leave
the .NET development and switch only to Java. Migrate existing knowledge of .NET
team to Java as a result of confusion on the part of Microsoft’s development
technologies, just a few will stay to support present systems. Only products as
SQLSVR or Windows SVRs will be supported especially SQL2016 BI solutions are
excellent, but what you did and do in .NET division and dev tools is a disaster.
Thanks for the great summary. I feel like it clarified some things related to
the direction of ,NET.
There are too many changes happening too quickly, even for this business.
The whole thing is incredibly confusing.
This article makes a lot more sense if you take the version numbers for .NET
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
4 months ago
3 months agoAVee
Standard and Core and divide them all by 2. The 2.0 version of .NET Standard will
be the first reasonable target for a production codebase.
Is it means that .net standard 2.0 already in former released .NET Framework
4.6.1 install package? or I have to install an update for .NET Framework 4.6.1?
Yes, I’m late to the game. But I finally got around to digging into where this
whole .NET Core thing is heading. I liked the initial concept an awful lot, a really did.
Now it’s mainly confusion and a deja-vu about the lack of a *consistent* direction.
From the article introducing .NET Core: “We deeply care about the dependencies
between contracts and that they only have a single
responsibility instead of being a grab bag of APIs.” That made my day back two
years ago…
And now we have .NET Standard which is exactly that, a grab bag of APIs. One
which by definition can only grow, never shrink (or compatibility breaks). Already
people are asking for everything and the kitchen sink to be included, give it a few
years and we’ll be right back where all of this started, with a framework consisting
of everything you could possibly need. Can’t we just rename .NET Core to .NET
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
3 months agoDan Siegel
1 day agodave
Framework 5 right away? (The FAQ proudly says about .NET Standard 2.0: ‘We
more than doubled the API surface’, see where this is going?)
What’s wrong with defining separate APIs for separate functionality? Define an API
(say, System.Xml) and for each framework specify which APIs it provides out of the
box. Add this ability to ‘provide’ an implementation of an API to nuGet packages as
well and you’re all set. E.g. .NET Core provides System.Collections.Generic but
doesn’t provide System.Drawing, Framework 4.x does provide System.Drawing. If
you need System.Drawing on .NET core there’s is a nuGet package (or maybe even
multiple) which does provide that API. It might require some added intelligence in
nuGet, but nothing beyond what apt (the package manager of Debian) could do
last century.
I love C#, I love Visual Studio, but the way the direction of .NET and it’s tooling is all
over the place is taking a lot of the fun out of it.
This article along with so many others all show UWP in the .NET Core
category right next to ASP.NET Core. Since ASP.NET Core apps can be built cross
platform, and particularly on Mac, using the CLI, Visual Studio Code or Visual Studio
for Mac… It only leaves me wondering why can’t a UWP app/library be compiled on
the Mac?
pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API
after this flops
© 2017 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Trademarks Privacy & Cookies