5 ms·

Why is it net core 3.0 only ? What prevented the authors from targeting lower net core versions or netstandard2 ?

• Dude2029 7y ago
  Maybe new C# stuff like default interfaces and some new async crap?
  • SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
    If you're doing networking, there is very useful new stuff in the latest version of C# and .NET,. but it's Spans and Pipelines more than default interfaces. Async is not new at all, but classes that really leverage it well might be (pipelines again).
    • BlanketLogic 7y ago
      > Async is not new at all I believe GP is referring to async streams[0]. Notwithstanding the colourful language GP used, I think the new async streams are pretty cool. [0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/tutorials/generate-consume-asynchronous-stream https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/tutorials/gen...
      • SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
        Is async streams and "await foreach" just syntactic sugar for things that could still be done beforehand, albeit with more code? I mean, "slightly more code" - you can say the same about "async ... await" in general, but then it's "insanely more code" and huge potential for error. It looks that way to me.
        • merb 7y ago
          nope async streams weren't really possible before without an unnecessary allocation. i.e. a List<Task<T>> is not the same as an AsyncEnumerable<T>. List<Func<Task<T>>> would be more equivalent, but you needed to have a List<T> which you need to fill beforehand.
          • SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
            >nope async streams weren't really possible before without an unnecessary allocation. You would have to define a few custom types. I have written code that looks something like while (! ctx.IsCancellationRequested) { var data = await source.GetData(); await Process(data); } Where source is an interface that we have defined. This is not much more complex than an async enumerable. It's definitely possible, and if you save an allocation then that's a step up, but not a game changer for most business process.
        • akra 7y ago
          Not quite. F# and a few other languages have had this capability for a few years now. Its effectively making the MoveNext() function on the enumerator object an async operation instead of a blocking one. This allows a foreach loop for example to wait until the next object comes without tying up the thread. Useful for things like pulling off a remote message queue, messages off a network, etc where the waiting for the next item in your "foreach" loop involves async/task based operations and you don't want to block the current thread.
• SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
  I expect that it uses Pipelines ( * ) which is a new high-performance design using Span<T> and related classes inside, and these are new, are not in netstandard2.0. Moving data onto and off the network efficiently is (one of) the things that Span<T> was created for. *) https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/system-io-pipelines-high-performance-io-in-net/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/system-io-pipelines-hi...
  • legulere 7y ago
    Pipelines can also be used with much older frameworks: https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.IO.Pipelines/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.IO.Pipelines/
    • SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
      it can, but then it uses the less-performant shims of Span<T> and company in https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.Memory/ https://www.nuget.org/packages/System.Memory/
• JamesNK 7y ago
  Developer on gRPC for .NET here. gRPC client requires HTTP/2, and HttpClient (the .NET library for making HTTP requests) didn't previously support HTTP/2. The gRPC client actually supports netstandard2.1. Any .NET implementation that supports HTTP/2 should support running the gRPC client. Kestrel (the .NET web server) already supported HTTP/2 but it required some new features in .NET 3.0 to fully support hosting gRPC services.