4 ms·

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 significa

by 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
      The graphic in the link is merely truncated from the rest of the .Net ecosystem. It's not redundant as it might appear in the image, libraries targeting the .Net Standard will run on Framework/Core/.Net 5+.
- 13jadkins 7y ago
  This was the entire reason I stopped being a .NET developer. Made the jump to Ruby a year ago.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Because handling gems compatibility issues and monkey patching is so much better experience.
- BuckRogers 7y ago
  >Either something is or isn't .Net 5 compatible. The end. You're in luck because that's the way it is. The .Net Standard is on the list of being .Net 5 compatible, because it's intended for shared libraries. I want libraries written for .Net Framework, Core and .Net 5 to be cross-compatible. Targeting the .Net Standard is the only way to do that. That's easily worth putting others, who aren't even using it, through mental turmoil. It won't be going away because the .Net Standard is an absolute must-have for the health of the ecosystem, and the most important underpinning to the entire Framework->Core->.Net 5 effort. As the grandparent comment said, it won't be as important going forward (.Net 5, 6, 7 etc) but won't be going away until the .Net Framework does. It's likely the .Net Standard will outlive you.
pjmlp 7y ago
So it is joining PCL.

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
    The graphic in the link is merely truncated from the rest of the .Net ecosystem. It's not redundant as it might appear in the image, libraries targeting the .Net Standard will run on Framework/Core/.Net 5+.
13jadkins 7y ago
This was the entire reason I stopped being a .NET developer. Made the jump to Ruby a year ago.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Because handling gems compatibility issues and monkey patching is so much better experience.
BuckRogers 7y ago
>Either something is or isn't .Net 5 compatible. The end. You're in luck because that's the way it is. The .Net Standard is on the list of being .Net 5 compatible, because it's intended for shared libraries. I want libraries written for .Net Framework, Core and .Net 5 to be cross-compatible. Targeting the .Net Standard is the only way to do that. That's easily worth putting others, who aren't even using it, through mental turmoil. It won't be going away because the .Net Standard is an absolute must-have for the health of the ecosystem, and the most important underpinning to the entire Framework->Core->.Net 5 effort. As the grandparent comment said, it won't be as important going forward (.Net 5, 6, 7 etc) but won't be going away until the .Net Framework does. It's likely the .Net Standard will outlive you.

pjmlp 7y ago

So it is joining PCL.