5 ms·

I missed that, and that would be a pretty big deal. I thought the message was of a side by side evolution, with full framework getting features possibly with a

by cm2187 8y ago

I missed that, and that would be a pretty big deal. I thought the message was of a side by side evolution, with full framework getting features possibly with a delay.

manigandham 8y ago
There's no point since .NET Core 3.0 can run desktop applications now.
- lol768 8y ago
  All the desktop stuff is only on Windows though, right? If I'm not mistaken this is the first major .NET Core component that is not cross-platform, which is confusing in itself.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Yes, since it's using Windows components like WPF. I dont think they ever had a plan for a cross-platform desktop UI kit.
    - solarkraft 8y ago
      They explicitly won't support cross-platform efforts for the GUI stuff, as stated on GitHub (though maybe, one day ...). I suppose their rationale is damage control ("Okay, they get the server, but the desktop is still firmly ours"), but it would certainly keep me from starting a personal project with a Microsoft Framework.
      - MikeTheGreat 8y ago
        > but the desktop is still firmly ours At this point I'm guessing that it's because there isn't a strong future for desktop apps written in native code. Even VSCode is written on top of Electron. Good, bad, or indifferent I think that there isn't a lot of point in developing a native GUI framework at this point. (To be clear - I'm 100% sure that there are a lot of use cases that I'm blithely waving away, but I'm also sure that those use cases are currently being addressed with WinForms, Qt, GNOME, etc, etc, so why should MS invest in Yet Another GUI Framework?)
        tracker1 8y ago
        I wouldn't mind seeing WPF, or a descendent, ported to other platforms. Xamarin Forms, Eto Forms, and a lot of other wrappers already do a lot of that though, if you want cross platform gui from .Net. (god that looks sloppy) I also tend to agree that for good, or bad, that Electron will probably grow significantly as an application base. Like I see node becoming the defacto runtime for WebAssembly, I see Electron taking that place for WebAssembly + UI. And I don't think it's all that bad. Even with MS, Electron seems to be their unified UI target for a lot of apps. VS Code, Teams, Azure SQL Studio (or whatever the name is now), and don't see that space shrinking. I'm only surprised that Teams doesn't have an official Linux version.
        jodrellblank 8y ago
        WinForms is outdated, "replaced" by WPF and I think apps on the Microsoft App Store have to use WPF instead of WinForms. So it would make sense if they're pushing .Net Core to be cross-platform, that they want to eventually push the Microsoft App Store "buy" button to be cross-platform as well, with a GUI framework to support those apps. Speculation, but .. of course they will want to.
        BuckRogers 8y ago
        You can't publish WinForms or WPF applications to the Microsoft Store, they've both been replaced. It's only UWP or using MS's tooling to convert Electron apps to UWP.
    - nbevans 8y ago
      Xamarin Forms is that.
      - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
        Isn’t that a clone of WinForms and not WPF?
        thrower123 8y ago
        That's probably a good thing. WinForms is still the nicest GUI development experience out there, sadly...
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Not at all, it uses XAML and the same ideas behind WPF.
- cm2187 8y ago
  It will run desktop applications developped for .net core. I don't believe that .net core can run a full framework desktop executable.
  - testvox 8y ago
    It can using the compatibility shim depending on what framework capabilities it requires.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      WCF, Remoting, Web Forms, ODP.NET, EF6 UI designers certainly not. Yes, some of those items are legacy, but not everyone enjoys paying to rewrite stuff from scratch.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Only partially, try to run any desktop application that depends on WCF or ODP.NET with it.
  - merb 8y ago
    wcf works under core (at least most of it), core 3.0 + wcf + windows desktop shim actually makes everything under wcf working again.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      Most of it is not good enough. I don't want to be the one stating on RFP "it kind of works".
      - manigandham 8y ago
        What is not good enough?
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Pick random .NET app using WCF and run it with zero changes on .NET Core.
      - cwyers 8y ago
        The implication I took from this was that it's not good enough now, but they anticipate it being good enough by the point this is released.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        Those customers want the existing apps to just run. Some of them, as sometimes happens, don't want to rewrite them.
WorldMaker 8y ago
Key pull quotes in this article specifically: > There will be just one .NET going forward > Additionally, we wanted to clearly communicate that .NET 5 is the future for the .NET platform.
- cm2187 8y ago
  Well, it is not really the case, there will be still two frameworks, just one isn't going to be developped anymore (full .net 4.8). The way I read that sentence initially was them merging the two into one.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Well, it is not really the case, there will be still two frameworks, just one isn't going to be developped anymore (full .net 4.8). If "one isn't going to be developed anymore" there there will be just one framework. "Being" here means what's the official worked-on implementation. Not merely existing, obviously the code for 4.8 wont go anywhere, nor will existing deployments suddenly vanish.
    - cm2187 8y ago
      When 4.8 is installed, 4.7 is going away. Here .net 5 will not replace .net 4.8, it will exist side by side (if I understand correctly). That's two frameworks to me.
      - ticmasta 8y ago
        >> When 4.8 is installed, 4.7 is going away. That's not true at all. You can run any version of the framework side-by-side all the way back.
        cheerlessbog 8y ago
        You can only have a single 4.x version on the box. They all install into the same folder.

by cm2187 8y ago

I missed that, and that would be a pretty big deal. I thought the message was of a side by side evolution, with full framework getting features possibly with a delay.

manigandham 8y ago

There's no point since .NET Core 3.0 can run desktop applications now.

lol768 8y ago
All the desktop stuff is only on Windows though, right? If I'm not mistaken this is the first major .NET Core component that is not cross-platform, which is confusing in itself.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Yes, since it's using Windows components like WPF. I dont think they ever had a plan for a cross-platform desktop UI kit.
  - solarkraft 8y ago
    They explicitly won't support cross-platform efforts for the GUI stuff, as stated on GitHub (though maybe, one day ...). I suppose their rationale is damage control ("Okay, they get the server, but the desktop is still firmly ours"), but it would certainly keep me from starting a personal project with a Microsoft Framework.
    - MikeTheGreat 8y ago
      > but the desktop is still firmly ours At this point I'm guessing that it's because there isn't a strong future for desktop apps written in native code. Even VSCode is written on top of Electron. Good, bad, or indifferent I think that there isn't a lot of point in developing a native GUI framework at this point. (To be clear - I'm 100% sure that there are a lot of use cases that I'm blithely waving away, but I'm also sure that those use cases are currently being addressed with WinForms, Qt, GNOME, etc, etc, so why should MS invest in Yet Another GUI Framework?)
      - tracker1 8y ago
        I wouldn't mind seeing WPF, or a descendent, ported to other platforms. Xamarin Forms, Eto Forms, and a lot of other wrappers already do a lot of that though, if you want cross platform gui from .Net. (god that looks sloppy) I also tend to agree that for good, or bad, that Electron will probably grow significantly as an application base. Like I see node becoming the defacto runtime for WebAssembly, I see Electron taking that place for WebAssembly + UI. And I don't think it's all that bad. Even with MS, Electron seems to be their unified UI target for a lot of apps. VS Code, Teams, Azure SQL Studio (or whatever the name is now), and don't see that space shrinking. I'm only surprised that Teams doesn't have an official Linux version.
      - jodrellblank 8y ago
        WinForms is outdated, "replaced" by WPF and I think apps on the Microsoft App Store have to use WPF instead of WinForms. So it would make sense if they're pushing .Net Core to be cross-platform, that they want to eventually push the Microsoft App Store "buy" button to be cross-platform as well, with a GUI framework to support those apps. Speculation, but .. of course they will want to.
        BuckRogers 8y ago
        You can't publish WinForms or WPF applications to the Microsoft Store, they've both been replaced. It's only UWP or using MS's tooling to convert Electron apps to UWP.
  - nbevans 8y ago
    Xamarin Forms is that.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      Isn’t that a clone of WinForms and not WPF?
      - thrower123 8y ago
        That's probably a good thing. WinForms is still the nicest GUI development experience out there, sadly...
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Not at all, it uses XAML and the same ideas behind WPF.
cm2187 8y ago
It will run desktop applications developped for .net core. I don't believe that .net core can run a full framework desktop executable.
- testvox 8y ago
  It can using the compatibility shim depending on what framework capabilities it requires.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    WCF, Remoting, Web Forms, ODP.NET, EF6 UI designers certainly not. Yes, some of those items are legacy, but not everyone enjoys paying to rewrite stuff from scratch.
pjmlp 8y ago
Only partially, try to run any desktop application that depends on WCF or ODP.NET with it.
- merb 8y ago
  wcf works under core (at least most of it), core 3.0 + wcf + windows desktop shim actually makes everything under wcf working again.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Most of it is not good enough. I don't want to be the one stating on RFP "it kind of works".
    - manigandham 8y ago
      What is not good enough?
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Pick random .NET app using WCF and run it with zero changes on .NET Core.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      The implication I took from this was that it's not good enough now, but they anticipate it being good enough by the point this is released.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        Those customers want the existing apps to just run. Some of them, as sometimes happens, don't want to rewrite them.

WorldMaker 8y ago

Key pull quotes in this article specifically: > There will be just one .NET going forward > Additionally, we wanted to clearly communicate that .NET 5 is the future for the .NET platform.

cm2187 8y ago
Well, it is not really the case, there will be still two frameworks, just one isn't going to be developped anymore (full .net 4.8). The way I read that sentence initially was them merging the two into one.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Well, it is not really the case, there will be still two frameworks, just one isn't going to be developped anymore (full .net 4.8). If "one isn't going to be developed anymore" there there will be just one framework. "Being" here means what's the official worked-on implementation. Not merely existing, obviously the code for 4.8 wont go anywhere, nor will existing deployments suddenly vanish.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    When 4.8 is installed, 4.7 is going away. Here .net 5 will not replace .net 4.8, it will exist side by side (if I understand correctly). That's two frameworks to me.
    - ticmasta 8y ago
      >> When 4.8 is installed, 4.7 is going away. That's not true at all. You can run any version of the framework side-by-side all the way back.
      - cheerlessbog 8y ago
        You can only have a single 4.x version on the box. They all install into the same folder.