.NET Standard 2.1

I think they prepare already a while the shift to .NET Core as the primary .NET platform (also on Windows).<p>- .NET Core will soon run all three UI technologies of modern Windows UWP, WinForms and WPF (.NET Core 3). - The Windows Compatability Pack for .NET Core shifted some popular .NET Framework libraries to .NET Core (some only on Windows).<p>There are one thing, Microsoft is really bad with: Telling the world that something is deprecated. There is a set of technologies in the .NET Framework which have no future: AppDomains, WCF, Code Access Security, Workflow Foundation, Cardspace, ... (just to name a few). They are all already dead for some years, but no one tells. They are supported in the .NET Framework but no progress happens. And .NET Core will never see them.

Suggested naming standard:<p>- .Net API Specification - (now known as .Net Standard)<p>- .Net Windows - (now known as .Net Framework)<p>- .Net Cross Platform - (now known as .Net Core)

&gt; Given many of the API additions in .NET Standard 2.1 require runtime changes in order to be meaningful, .NET Framework 4.8 will remain on .NET Standard 2.0 rather than implement .NET Standard 2.1. .NET Core 3.0 as well as upcoming versions of Xamarin, Mono, and Unity will be updated to implement .NET Standard 2.1.<p>At some point, is it reasonable to expect Xamarin, Mono, Unity, and .NET Core to all really be backed by .NET Core? And if&#x2F;when so, is there any difference between .NET Standard and .NET Core since, after .NET Framework has been essentially maintenance-mode&#x27;d, there will be only one .NET Standard implementation? Similar question, besides just having multiple implementations, what benefit is there to having both Mono and .NET Core separate (at least for the .NET Standard impl part)?

Everytime I start to think Microsoft is heading in the right direction they go and blow it all away again.<p>This week we&#x27;ve already had a new asp.net core which drops support for .net standard and only supports .net core.<p>And now, a new version of .net standard that .net fx isn&#x27;t going to support.<p>We are right back at the mess of portable class libraries with all their different supported profiles.<p>It means app devs are constantly dealing with problems like &quot;is this library I want to use, supported by all the targets my app needs to run on&quot;, and library devs have a mess of different frameworks and combinations to support, so inevitability drop a few of them unless they are a big project with lots of manpower.

Let me just check if I finally understand this:<p>- .Net Framework: The Windows Specific (and nearly deprecated) branch<p>- .Net Core: The replacement for Framework and cross platform branch (but with Windows specific libraries)<p>- .Net Standard: A way to write something that runs on both .Net Framework and Core?

It&#x27;s a pity 2.1 will not be implemented by netfx 4.8. I wonder if there will ever be E netfx with netstandard 2.1.<p>Sadly things are not looking good for standardization - on one hand we have new netstandard without netfx and on the other aspnet.core without netstandard (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;aspnet&#x2F;AspNetCore&#x2F;issues&#x2F;3753" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;aspnet&#x2F;AspNetCore&#x2F;issues&#x2F;3753</a>).

So they added Span&lt;T&gt; as a big thing ...<p>&gt; (Span&lt;T&gt; is) at the heart of most performance-related improvements in .NET Core 2.1. Since it allows managing buffers in a more efficient way, it can help in reducing allocations and copying. We consider Span to be a very fundamental type as it requires runtime and compiler support in order to be fully leveraged.<p>Small struct that is declared as<p><pre><code> public readonly ref struct Span&lt;T&gt; { private readonly ref T _pointer; private readonly int _length; ... } </code></pre> which is exactly what I am using in Sciter (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sciter.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sciter.com</a>) for 10+ years:<p><pre><code> template &lt;typename T&gt; struct slice { const T* start; unsigned int length; ... } </code></pre> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;c-smile&#x2F;sciter-sdk&#x2F;blob&#x2F;master&#x2F;include&#x2F;aux-slice.h#L48" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;c-smile&#x2F;sciter-sdk&#x2F;blob&#x2F;master&#x2F;include&#x2F;au...</a><p>Such small thing definitely speed ups many areas and surprisingly quite a lot, parsing in particular.<p>Nothing new under the Sun, eh?

I thought the Java framework nomenclature was bad, but .Net is way more confusing.

Anybody got any updates on the state of Mono&#x2F;.NET Core convergence?<p>I actually don&#x27;t care very much if they&#x27;re actually the same code base, but I&#x27;d like to be able to use the dotnet CLI for everything. Xamarin project templates in the new SDK format are also on my wishlist.

I do mainly desktop dev but reading that Core is now the platform with rapid improvements I wonder if it&#x27;s possible to write WPF or UWP apps with .NET Core or Standard.<p>Does anyone know?

I thought we already have .NET 4. I don&#x27;t understand.

i really wish they would say &quot;the .net standard&quot; rather than just &quot;.net standard&quot;. missing that prefixed article is confusing for someone not in the ecosystem (or me at least).<p>even better would be &quot;specification&quot; rather than &quot;standard&quot;, the later being a word frequently used to indicate a particular version of some thing.