3 ms·

That’s one of the things that tangibly improved IMO: they removed the file list, so except still being ugly XML, the csproj is now very comparable to package.js

That’s one of the things that tangibly improved IMO: they removed the file list, so except still being ugly XML, the csproj is now very comparable to package.json or Cargo.toml.

philliphaydon 4y ago
A lot… A LOT better than package.json… And can be edited without unloading the project first.
- codeflo 4y ago
  Better in what sense? Syntax aside, I don’t see a substantial difference in terms of file content. I do see a substantial difference in terms of tool capabilities (like .NET/NuGet’s inability to resolve conflicting diamond dependencies).
  - GiorgioG 4y ago
    As much as I'm not a fan of the XML based project files, the csproj format is much more flexible/capable than package.json files. For example, you may want to have different versions of a package reference based on some condition. Would it be better w/JSON than XML? I think it's a toss-up.
    - codeflo 4y ago
      That’s a good point. Rust’s cargo files have that feature as well. And I agree that surface syntax isn’t the main issue.
      - fomine3 4y ago
        Lack of comment is a serious flaw for package.json syntax.