4 ms·
I'm confused. Isn't this already a feature of .NET Core?
by moron4hire 6y ago
I'm confused. Isn't this already a feature of .NET Core?
- w-j-w 6y agoWhich is on core version 3.1 They are disjoint, with .NET core being billed as the successor to .NET
- janwillemb 6y agoNo, publishing a .NET core project gives you tons of dlls in the publish directory, especially when publishing self-contained.
- Ididntdothis 6y agoThere is a flag that makes it into a single file. But the load time of this exe is very slow. It looks like it just packs all the assemblies together and extracts them during load.
- bmitc 6y agoI just did this for a simple project. I indeed noticed that the startup time was extremely slow. The subsequent run-time was faster though, although still not that fast. So something interesting was going on via a per-terminal session basis.
- efdee 6y agoThat's because the first time you start it, it actually unzips itself to a temporary folder, and then runs from there.
- techntoke 6y agoWhich is why people should use a language that isn't riddled with issues like this. The documentation on compilation and flags is horrible BTW.
- Ididntdothis 6y ago"Which is why people should use a language that isn't riddled with issues like this." You can't pick a language based on one characteristic. Show me a language that doesn't have a long series of stupid issues. Usually you have to pick the lesser evil.
- techntoke 6y agoAny compiled language for Linux really don't have these types of issues. Go, Rust, C, C++, Nim, etc.
- withinboredom 6y ago> Any compiled language for Linux really don't have these types of issues. Go, Rust, C, C++, Nim, etc. They have their own set of issues...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tybit 6y agoCurrently the single file solution is a zip that unzips into directory with many files. It was a great stop gap solution but not the final thing (hopefully).
- moron4hire 6y agoOkay, didn't realize that was the case. I had used the single-file solution a few times, but mostly just for the convenience of deployment, never really paying attention to any other aspects of it.
- monadic2 6y agoAre the resulting files mutable?
- ripley12 6y agoYes, this is already a thing in .NET Core 3: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-core-3-0#single-file-executables https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotne... It's not clear to me how the .NET 5 feature is different.
- moron4hire 6y agoI'm guessing the significance is that .NET 5 unifies .NET Framework and .NET Core, and this feature is not available in .NET Framework 4.8.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoMy understanding is that .Net 5 is a new version of .Net Core and that the .Net framework is dead.
- appleflaxen 6y agoMicrosoft naming has been executed poorly. If you don't have daily familiarity with these tools, they are absolutely inscrutable.
- ak39 6y agoCorrect. This is also double trouble when Microsoft changes the names of the same product for a future release.
- moron4hire 6y agoIf you actually use the tech, it's really not that confusing
- miffy900 6y ago.NET 5 unifies Mono and .NET Core, not .NET Core and Framework. Previously Mono and .NET Core had different base class libraries and machine code generators (Mono using LLVM).
- techntoke 6y agoYes and no. .NET static binary isn't truly static. It has to decompile a folder with the dependencies in order to run.