4 ms·

Does this spell the end of .NET Standard? And does this explain why they don't seem to care about making .NET Standard versions at all logical to developers (e

Does this spell the end of .NET Standard? And does this explain why they don't seem to care about making .NET Standard versions at all logical to developers (e.g. making a major breaking change, not supporting .NET Framework, to .NET Standard in a minor version)? Edit: And before someone says ".NET Framework is choosing not to support .NET Standard, you shouldn't version based off implementations but off changes in the API": That only works if you have many implementations, .NET Standard has 3 major implementations! Losing 33% is pretty significant :)

archey1 7y ago
I think you are confusing the .NET Standard (ie. the standard to base implementations of .NET on) with .NET Framework which is going away.
- Dayshine 7y ago
  My understanding is that .NET Standard was needed to provide an API for the various different implementations to support. This was normally draw in images like this: http://gigi.nullneuron.net/gigilabs/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/net-platform.png http://gigi.nullneuron.net/gigilabs/wp-content/uploads/2017/... The updated image is this: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/05/dotnet5_platform.png https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/wp-content/uploads/sit... Which seems to have removed the implementations (mono/.NET Framework) and implies .NET 5 will be targeted by all platforms directly? So what is .NET Standard needed for anymore, platforms now target .NET 5 versions instead of .NET Standard versions right?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    People will continue to support both framework and core for decades, so library authors that want to support e.g both framework and Core will need to ship libraries targeting .Net standard just like they do today. The question is perhaps whether there will be a new Standard (5 would be a good choice of number) indicating the support needed for .Net 5. Unless there is a competing implementation perhaps there is no need
    - jbtule 7y ago
      I mean, .netstandard 2.1 won't be supported by .net framework sooo, yeah, they just pretty much obsoleted .net standard.
      - kevingadd 7y ago
        (I don't know the answer to this question) wouldn't that just mean that .netframework's last supported version of netstandard is 2, and then you have a netstandard 5 that's supported by .NET 5? I don't feel like that's especially confusing.
    - merb 7y ago
      actually if you need to support core and .net 4 you probably need to target .net standard 1.6-2 anyway, i hope at least .net 5/6 will support that.
- scarface74 7y ago
  .Net Framework isn’t going away. They said in another post it will be supported as long as Windows is supported but it will only be getting “highly compatible” maintenance updates.
runfaster2000 7y ago
We haven't made a decision on .NET Standard yet, in terms of what its role will be going forward. Major point is that its forward-looking role will be significantly diminished with this plan.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  You guys should seriously consider the mental load all of this rebranding is having on your community. You have too many brands, too many names, and too many seemingly overlapping ideas. I want to see .Net Standard die, not because of the technological merits of it or problems, but because you guys have created such a confusing mess and .Net Standard is perhaps one of the worst examples. .Net Standard seemingly exists to consolidate compatibility between Core/Framework/whatever, but with you consolidating them under the "Framework" branding anyway there's no reason it should exist except to confuse further. Either something is or isn't .Net 5 compatible. The end.
  - majkinetor 7y ago
    I totally agree on this. My head hurts each time I try to understand what is going on.
  - topbanana 7y ago
    With respect, if you don't understand why .Net Standard exists, you've really no business wanting it to die. For now, it's a vital bridge between .Net Framework and .Net Core. It's something I make use of regularly.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      The post you replied to said exactly why it exists and explained why it no longer needs to exist after this (.Net 5) change. Even Microsoft's own graphic on the linked page makes .Net Standard's irrelevance obvious.
      - BuckRogers 7y ago

archey1 7y ago

I think you are confusing the .NET Standard (ie. the standard to base implementations of .NET on) with .NET Framework which is going away.

Dayshine 7y ago
My understanding is that .NET Standard was needed to provide an API for the various different implementations to support. This was normally draw in images like this: http://gigi.nullneuron.net/gigilabs/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/net-platform.png http://gigi.nullneuron.net/gigilabs/wp-content/uploads/2017/... The updated image is this: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/05/dotnet5_platform.png https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/wp-content/uploads/sit... Which seems to have removed the implementations (mono/.NET Framework) and implies .NET 5 will be targeted by all platforms directly? So what is .NET Standard needed for anymore, platforms now target .NET 5 versions instead of .NET Standard versions right?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- alkonaut 7y ago
  People will continue to support both framework and core for decades, so library authors that want to support e.g both framework and Core will need to ship libraries targeting .Net standard just like they do today. The question is perhaps whether there will be a new Standard (5 would be a good choice of number) indicating the support needed for .Net 5. Unless there is a competing implementation perhaps there is no need
  - jbtule 7y ago
    I mean, .netstandard 2.1 won't be supported by .net framework sooo, yeah, they just pretty much obsoleted .net standard.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      (I don't know the answer to this question) wouldn't that just mean that .netframework's last supported version of netstandard is 2, and then you have a netstandard 5 that's supported by .NET 5? I don't feel like that's especially confusing.
  - merb 7y ago
    actually if you need to support core and .net 4 you probably need to target .net standard 1.6-2 anyway, i hope at least .net 5/6 will support that.
scarface74 7y ago
.Net Framework isn’t going away. They said in another post it will be supported as long as Windows is supported but it will only be getting “highly compatible” maintenance updates.

runfaster2000 7y ago

We haven't made a decision on .NET Standard yet, in terms of what its role will be going forward. Major point is that its forward-looking role will be significantly diminished with this plan.

Someone1234 7y ago
You guys should seriously consider the mental load all of this rebranding is having on your community. You have too many brands, too many names, and too many seemingly overlapping ideas. I want to see .Net Standard die, not because of the technological merits of it or problems, but because you guys have created such a confusing mess and .Net Standard is perhaps one of the worst examples. .Net Standard seemingly exists to consolidate compatibility between Core/Framework/whatever, but with you consolidating them under the "Framework" branding anyway there's no reason it should exist except to confuse further. Either something is or isn't .Net 5 compatible. The end.
- majkinetor 7y ago
  I totally agree on this. My head hurts each time I try to understand what is going on.
- topbanana 7y ago
  With respect, if you don't understand why .Net Standard exists, you've really no business wanting it to die. For now, it's a vital bridge between .Net Framework and .Net Core. It's something I make use of regularly.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    The post you replied to said exactly why it exists and explained why it no longer needs to exist after this (.Net 5) change. Even Microsoft's own graphic on the linked page makes .Net Standard's irrelevance obvious.
    - BuckRogers 7y ago