4 ms·

.net standard and .net core and two separate things. the former is an api/library specification and the latter is an implementation of that specification. mono

.net standard and .net core and two separate things. the former is an api/library specification and the latter is an implementation of that specification. mono and .net framework are also implementations. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standard https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standar... https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/mt842506.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/mt842506.aspx

kodablah 8y ago
I understand that, but I am asking if the implementation ends up becoming the only implementation of a specification, is there a meaningful difference between the two? I would expect Mono to use more of .NET Core (or if not, curious why not hence my last question), and .NET framework is no longer an implementation of current and future .NET standard specifications (hence the part I quoted).
- nikofeyn 8y ago
  oh, i see what you mean now. from my understanding, .net core 3.0 will start to make .net core the primary choice of development for new projects on windows since it will include the uwp, wpf, and winforms desktop packs. but if you still need cross-platform ui and graphics, mono is still the only choice. so it does seem that microsoft is converging on trying to "get rid of", so to speak, .net framework and mono, but it seems there's still a ways to go. even a newish project in the wilderness labs meadow board used mono and not .net core for their project. i am sure it's because they started a while ago and there were technical reasons. .net core lacked features mono had for a while (and maybe still does, not for sure of the current status). moving existing projects like it, unity, and xamarin from mono to .net core is probably a huge undertaking. in terms of naming, i think it makes sense to keep the distinction between .net standard and .net core, even if .net core slowly heads towards becoming the de facto implementation. i doubt .net framework and mono ever really go away anyway, so the distinction is still needed.

kodablah 8y ago

I understand that, but I am asking if the implementation ends up becoming the only implementation of a specification, is there a meaningful difference between the two? I would expect Mono to use more of .NET Core (or if not, curious why not hence my last question), and .NET framework is no longer an implementation of current and future .NET standard specifications (hence the part I quoted).

nikofeyn 8y ago
oh, i see what you mean now. from my understanding, .net core 3.0 will start to make .net core the primary choice of development for new projects on windows since it will include the uwp, wpf, and winforms desktop packs. but if you still need cross-platform ui and graphics, mono is still the only choice. so it does seem that microsoft is converging on trying to "get rid of", so to speak, .net framework and mono, but it seems there's still a ways to go. even a newish project in the wilderness labs meadow board used mono and not .net core for their project. i am sure it's because they started a while ago and there were technical reasons. .net core lacked features mono had for a while (and maybe still does, not for sure of the current status). moving existing projects like it, unity, and xamarin from mono to .net core is probably a huge undertaking. in terms of naming, i think it makes sense to keep the distinction between .net standard and .net core, even if .net core slowly heads towards becoming the de facto implementation. i doubt .net framework and mono ever really go away anyway, so the distinction is still needed.