4 ms·

> Mono has no reason to live anymore This isn't really true. Mono functions as a complete replacement for the ".NET Framework" - something that can be used to

by bri3d 2y ago

> Mono has no reason to live anymore This isn't really true. Mono functions as a complete replacement for the ".NET Framework" - something that can be used to run any .NET app, including "legacy" apps targeting old ".NET Framework" versions, on any supported platform, even when the app was built to target Windows. dotnet/runtime is intended to run more modern applications that target ".NET Core" - basically, stuff that's cross-platform on purpose. There are tons of subtle differences relating to these goals but also some glaringly obvious ones, like mono having an implementation of Windows.Forms. > hence the lack of commits and contributions Microsoft have been actively forcing contributors out of mono/mono and into the dotnet/runtime repo for several years now, while Wine kept a weird halfway fork at https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine-mono/mono https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine-mono/mono . Formally transferring `mono/mono` and the Mono name over to Wine will in theory allow `mono` to more effectively accept code which works to improve legacy .NET Framework support for compatibility reasons, while dotnet/runtime can continue to evolve as the way to run intentionally targeted .NET Core code.

lyu07282 2y ago
Won't most apps use way more .net stuff than core? Mono was a way to run dotnet apps on Linux, killing it meant killing cross platform support for modern dotnet desktop apps?
- jkulubya 2y ago
  Not really. Best to think of .net “core” as just .net. Anything that was in the old .net that isn’t in core today won’t ever be. Then there’s stuff that was missing in the earlier versions of core that existed in old dotnet. Some of it they later realised was useful for newer apps or apps migrated to core. These pieces were ported over by Microsoft or replaced by 3rd party implementations (e.g. avalonia for xplat ui). (.net core is actually officially just .net, they dropped the core from the name)
  - lyu07282 2y ago
    Thanks, now it make sense why they dropped the "core" in the name its confusing I thought that meant only the fundamentals
- romwell 2y ago
  This is Hackernews. What are those Desktop apps you speak of? Clearly, everything is a command-line backend pipeline in container with a web UI. And everything that isn't can be easily deprecated. /s
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by bri3d 2y ago

lyu07282 2y ago

Won't most apps use way more .net stuff than core? Mono was a way to run dotnet apps on Linux, killing it meant killing cross platform support for modern dotnet desktop apps?

jkulubya 2y ago
Not really. Best to think of .net “core” as just .net. Anything that was in the old .net that isn’t in core today won’t ever be. Then there’s stuff that was missing in the earlier versions of core that existed in old dotnet. Some of it they later realised was useful for newer apps or apps migrated to core. These pieces were ported over by Microsoft or replaced by 3rd party implementations (e.g. avalonia for xplat ui). (.net core is actually officially just .net, they dropped the core from the name)
- lyu07282 2y ago
  Thanks, now it make sense why they dropped the "core" in the name its confusing I thought that meant only the fundamentals
romwell 2y ago
This is Hackernews. What are those Desktop apps you speak of? Clearly, everything is a command-line backend pipeline in container with a web UI. And everything that isn't can be easily deprecated. /s
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]