5 ms·

Interestingly the referenced ASP.NET Core 2.0 announcement[0] addresses the .NET Framework incompatibility issue discussed on HN yesterday[1]: >This preview ve

Interestingly the referenced ASP.NET Core 2.0 announcement[0] addresses the .NET Framework incompatibility issue discussed on HN yesterday[1]: >This preview version of ASP.NET Core 2.0 ships with support for the .NET Core 2.0 SDK only. Our goal is to ship ASP.NET Core 2.0 on .NET Standard 2.0 so applications can run on .NET Core, Mono and .NET Framework. As the team was working through the last of their issues before Build, it was uncovered that the preview of ASP.NET Core 2.0 utilized API’s that were outside of .NET Standard 2.0, preventing it from running on .NET Framework. Because of this we limited Preview 1 support .NET Core only so it would not break a developer upgrading an ASP.NET Core 1.x application to ASP.NET Core 2 preview on .NET Framework. [0] https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2017/05/10/aspnet-2-preview-1/ https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2017/05/10/aspnet-2-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14297974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14297974

rjbwork 9y ago
Well that's a reassuring conclusion to the mini PR disaster that was that issue yesterday.
dvcc 9y ago
I just read through that as someone who had been semi-following .NET Core up-to the project.json mini-crisis and I am completely lost. How is anyone supposed to just pick up (.NET Core|.NET Standard|.NET Framework) and understand what framework they need to for their app/library to work. I think at one point .NET Standard Apps were even renamed to .NET Core Apps. Are we supposed to open up the Venn diagram until we remember it?
- avtar 9y ago
  There's a diagram floating around in their site and presentations on Youtube which I don't have access to at the moment. I might be wrong but I think one would pick Core to target multiple platforms, including Windows, and Framework only to target Windows. Standard seems to be the API that libraries should target so that they can be used on all the different supported platforms and devices.
  - JBReefer 9y ago
    Yeah, Standard is the intersection of the 3 APIs that MS says will work no matter which you target, without needing BCLs. Core is a bit different, but not that different from Framework API-wise, and it will run anywhere, but has no native UI support. Framework is the original blend, and it is probably going to be mostly used for desktop applications and games going forward. Core is the future, they tore a ton of the old, obsolete features out, but it means that porting a codebase that relies on those is non-trivial. Significantly, it doesn't support Web Forms, which is great for developers but a hard sell for managers.
    - lloydjatkinson 9y ago
      > without needing BCLs. Nope, that doesn't even make sense. The BCL is where all the base classes live. > Significantly, it doesn't support Web Forms, which is great for developers but a hard sell for managers. I can't tell if you're trolling or are serious, if you are serious that's pretty sad. WebForms is an abomination. Just because you can use drag and drop controls and "magically" get AJAX working in the background does not mean it's a good thing. I don't even know where the "great for developers but a hard sell for managers" comes from. If by your own admission it's so great, why is it not the other way around with developers hating it and managers pushing for it? Either way, that scenario doesn't happen. WebForms has for literally years been as dead as the dodo, with only 1) legacy applications using it or 2) developers who don't have a clue and haven't bothered trying to learn anything modern. ASP.NET MVC or ASP.NET Web API with a TS/JS frontend are the only 2 options you have.
    - jug 9y ago
      So I went to their API docs and for example Microsoft.Win32.Registry is part of ".NET Core 2.0" but not ".NET Standard 2.0". I'm not sure what to make of this. It leds me to believe they have an emulation of the Windows Registry for non-Windows targets using .NET Core 2.0 as there is no warning this lacks non-Windows implementations. After all, .NET Core 2.0 is a physical, cross platform product. But is that really the case? Or will I suddenly run into some e.g. NotSupportedException?

rjbwork 9y ago

Well that's a reassuring conclusion to the mini PR disaster that was that issue yesterday.

dvcc 9y ago

I just read through that as someone who had been semi-following .NET Core up-to the project.json mini-crisis and I am completely lost. How is anyone supposed to just pick up (.NET Core|.NET Standard|.NET Framework) and understand what framework they need to for their app/library to work. I think at one point .NET Standard Apps were even renamed to .NET Core Apps. Are we supposed to open up the Venn diagram until we remember it?

avtar 9y ago
There's a diagram floating around in their site and presentations on Youtube which I don't have access to at the moment. I might be wrong but I think one would pick Core to target multiple platforms, including Windows, and Framework only to target Windows. Standard seems to be the API that libraries should target so that they can be used on all the different supported platforms and devices.
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Yeah, Standard is the intersection of the 3 APIs that MS says will work no matter which you target, without needing BCLs. Core is a bit different, but not that different from Framework API-wise, and it will run anywhere, but has no native UI support. Framework is the original blend, and it is probably going to be mostly used for desktop applications and games going forward. Core is the future, they tore a ton of the old, obsolete features out, but it means that porting a codebase that relies on those is non-trivial. Significantly, it doesn't support Web Forms, which is great for developers but a hard sell for managers.
  - lloydjatkinson 9y ago
    > without needing BCLs. Nope, that doesn't even make sense. The BCL is where all the base classes live. > Significantly, it doesn't support Web Forms, which is great for developers but a hard sell for managers. I can't tell if you're trolling or are serious, if you are serious that's pretty sad. WebForms is an abomination. Just because you can use drag and drop controls and "magically" get AJAX working in the background does not mean it's a good thing. I don't even know where the "great for developers but a hard sell for managers" comes from. If by your own admission it's so great, why is it not the other way around with developers hating it and managers pushing for it? Either way, that scenario doesn't happen. WebForms has for literally years been as dead as the dodo, with only 1) legacy applications using it or 2) developers who don't have a clue and haven't bothered trying to learn anything modern. ASP.NET MVC or ASP.NET Web API with a TS/JS frontend are the only 2 options you have.
  - jug 9y ago
    So I went to their API docs and for example Microsoft.Win32.Registry is part of ".NET Core 2.0" but not ".NET Standard 2.0". I'm not sure what to make of this. It leds me to believe they have an emulation of the Windows Registry for non-Windows targets using .NET Core 2.0 as there is no warning this lacks non-Windows implementations. After all, .NET Core 2.0 is a physical, cross platform product. But is that really the case? Or will I suddenly run into some e.g. NotSupportedException?