4 ms·

I can sum up the situation with two sentences: I hate writing Win32 apps, but I love using them. I love writing .NET apps but I hate using them. The problem w

I can sum up the situation with two sentences: I hate writing Win32 apps, but I love using them. I love writing .NET apps but I hate using them. The problem with Win32 apps is that although they look ugly, in general they're blazing fast and work basically everywhere. The problem with .NET apps is although they're aesthetically pleasing, they require the relevant version of the framework to be installed. I remember fighting with installing a .NET-based driver installer that insisted on installing an ancient version of .NET that Windows wouldn't allow to install. Win32 support is still universal.

platz 7y ago
Core apps can be deployed standalone
gameswithgo 7y ago
With .NET Core 3, you can deploy them standalone, and performance is much improved. So you might have a happy middle ground available now. And when I say performance is improved, there are two fronts to that. First, the compiler/jit are just better now, core library functions are sped up a ton, so just running ported old .NET Framework code will be a lot faster. But also, C# has added new features in recent years that give you further control over memory usage/layout, and now even SIMD Intrinsics, so the performance ceiling is much higher if you want to optimize your own code.
- huzaif 7y ago
  Piggy backing on this a bit.. You can now publish a .net core 3.0 app that is: 1- Ready to Run: Part AOT compiled app for the platform. 2- Trimmed: Tree shaken down to only necessary bits from the framework. 3- Single File: Self contained app. This combination of features provides a really decent balance between size, performance and distribution.