Talk:.NET Framework

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Microsoft / .NET / Windows (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject .NET (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as High-importance).

FCL vs BCL[edit]

In the article the relation between the Base Class Library and the Framework Class Library is described: "BCL is a superset of FCL", meaning that the BCL contains the FCL, right? In another wiki, on the page on the FCL, this relationship is inverted: "The Base Class Library (BCL) is the core of the FCL", meaning that the FCL contains the BCL.

So.. which one is it? 2A02:1810:9C29:9B00:707E:5B:99A7:E6AA (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is resolved already. Do not know the practice, should this paragraph be removed then? --Oaiey (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
No. You should delete other people's messages in Wikipedia unless they violate a policy that says they mustn't have appeared in the first place. Tag the topic like this:
Yes check.svg Done. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reworking the .NET Framework article ground-up[edit]

I have read the article over the years many times but now in 2016 I think it needs a big overhaul. Let me reason why:

  • The .NET Framework is no longer the same as .NET. It might be the dominant implementation, but not the 2016 way of seeing it. Therefore the forwarding of ".NET" to ".NET Framework" is not correct anymore. The German Wikipedia ( has already applied that change already. Also the forwarding of ".NET Core" is wrong.
  • While sharing most of the base technology (CLI, IL, ...), the described different ".NET" platforms have so many different characteristics and the ".NET Framework" is just one of them that the article is a bit disorganized now (e.g. licensing table was working as long as the article just targets the ".NET Framework" but now it mismatches the ".NET Core" as a sub-part of the ".NET Framework" which is completely incorrect Yes check.svg Done). This is true for many other paragraphs.
  • The concept of app models is missing. Yes check.svg Done
  • The upcoming .NET Core introduces a complete different OS integration and makes it really cross-platform. Yes check.svg Done
  • The library topics ".NET Standard Library" Yes check.svg Done, Portable Class Library (and their problems/evolvements) Yes check.svg Done, NuGet Package Manager Yes check.svg Done, and the "mscorlib" vs. "System.Runtime".
  • The Universal Windows App topics native compilation, CoreRT Yes check.svg Done runtime and Silverlight styled "Core" profile is missing.

Like said in the first point: I think the main problem is not the content but the fact that ".NET" should be an own article with the main architecture concepts with sub articles about ".NET Framework", ".NET Core", "Mono", ".Net Micro/Compact Framework", ... which further focus on the individual details.

I am eager to help but since I am not a native English speaker and Wiki Newbie I would need someone helping me a bit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaiey (talkcontribs) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oaiey: Allow me to give you a friendly warning: Wikipedia veterans always assume a person who says "re-write this article from the ground up" to be an idiot. (Although, they are polite and they won't say it.) And in all the cases that I have witnessed, they were right. Essentially, you must really understand the meaning of "re-write this article from the ground up" and that what a big mistake it is.
Now as for the difference between ".NET" and ".NET Framework", I have seen one blog post on the Internet that proposed this position and that blog post was wrong. It was talking dumb because it assumed its audience were dumb and things should be dumbed down for them. In Wikipedia, we simplify thing but we don't dumb them down; doing that sacrifices the accuracy and NPOV. Fleet Command (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
@FleetCommand: A appreciate the warning and understand it. As a software engineer I know this sickness, just with code instead of articles. Since I do not know the common practices, I do not change the article but first ask here. File a "issue", discuss and then propose the change (that is how to do software development in the open source world I participate in ;)). So I propose we do what I would do with code: doing it step by step to achieve a better result on the way.
To the topic: Can you please reference this blog post. According to the program management at Microsoft and the actual source code it is fair to say that .NET Core is not a component of the .NET Framework and that they are completely different animals. See the graphics on Scott Hanselman's blog post (he is a Microsoft "Principle Program Manager" for .NET) and for example the documentation of the .NET Core team (written by the guys who do the .NET Framework and .NET Core) clearly separates them as different implementations of ".NET" Also the build talk of the .NET Program Managers (Scott Hunter and Scott Hanselman) at clearly separate them as two implementation on minutes 5:29, 6:10 and 12:10. This is not some individuals "position", this is the official position and technical facts. You can even inspect the different code bases on and Wikipedia also has sub pages for the .NET Micro and Compact Frameworks which are also different animals.
Despite your correct warning to a newbie where I am completely with you, I stay with the position: This article group (.NET/.NET Framework/.NET Core) needs a major update. What do you think! --Oaiey (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Oaiey and welcome to English Wikipedia.
I recently did a recomposition of the .NET Core section: See revision 713868443. My concerns were more or less similar to yours. As such, I am in a state that don't know what more I can do for the article. But if you think the article needs more updates, you have two options:
  1. You can go ahead and update the live article with the changes that you have in mind, and engage with editors who may challenge your edits and provide feedback. But this can be overwhelming for newcomers who are not used to their changes being reverted wholesale. (See Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing.)
  2. You can fork the article in your own user space, say at User:Oaiey/.NET Framework where you can edit in peace. But you shouldn't allow your draft to lose sync with the main article, or else importing your changes can be challenging.
Be sure to provide sources for what you write; I can help you format your citations as long as you don't forget to put them between <ref>...</ref> tags.
As for the source that FC mentioned above, I think it is the one cited in the article:

To understand what .NET Core is, it’s helpful to understand .NET itself. Many people mean “.NET Framework” when they say “.NET,” but there’s more to it than that. .NET is an ECMA standard that has different implementations—.NET Framework, Mono, Unity and, now, .NET Core. This means that many of the experiences are shared between the .NET Framework and .NET Core. However, .NET Core is new, with some different principles in mind.

— Carter, Phillip; Knezevic, Zlatko (April 2016). ".NET Core - .NET Goes Cross-Platform with .NET Core". MSDN Magazine. Microsoft. 
Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot lean too much on this statement as long as the part that says 'Many people mean “.NET Framework” when they say “.NET,”' is true. (You can consult our due weight policy.) Still, I can provide much more constructive feedback when I know what you want to write.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I will do it step-by-step by introducing small changes. I have to warm up here. Thanks Codename Lisa for your welcoming words. I just started with the license table, so feel free to beat me ;) --Oaiey (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright, first the terminology. As long as the majority of people take ".NET" to mean ".NET Framework", you must not use it in any other sense. The reason is simple: Because the majority of the reads only think of it as an inconsistency. Your message does not go through.
Second, does "Entity Framework Core" exist at this time? I have looked up but I don't see it. If it is nothing more than a project announcement just yet, we don't speak about it in this article. Try Entity Framework article first.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Entity Framework Core exists. it is under while the traditionally is somewhere at codeplex.
In regards of .NET vs. NET Framework ... I work on it .. not easy ;) we have to fix that issue one day for the article (the .NET -> .NET Framework forwarding already creates this problem)
--Oaiey (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. It is the Entity Framework website. Looks like Microsoft is renaming the Entity Framework for consistency, right?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
They had problems with ASP.NET 4.6 and ASP.NET 5. People were epxecting more features and compatability. Therefore they renamed ASP.NET 5 to ASP.NET Core 1.0 and reset it to 1 (to make it clear). The same they did for the same reasons with Entity Framework (7->Core 1) and .NET Core (5->1) ( --Oaiey (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Is EFCore the successor or an offshoot? ("Unknown so far" is a valid answer too.) If the former, the Entity Framework article needs to be renamed Entity Framework Core and EF stuff push into a history section. If the latter, we just need a new Entity Framework Core article, although I suspect the size rule is going to be a problem.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
An offshoot as far as I understand the term offshoot ;). Same concepts but new implementation. I am not an expert in that area. Offshoot also applies for ASP.NET Core. --Oaiey (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Breaking Out shared .NET Architecture article[edit]

Since .NET Core, Mono, .NET Framework, Silverlight, etc. all share a set of shared principles and architecture (CLR, CTS, memory management, typing, ...), why not break them out into a separate article and reference it. In a second step we could then add a reference from the other implementations like Mono, Silverlight, etc. Thoughts? --Oaiey (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The size rule and the notability policy are our first concerns. We have Common Language Runtime and Common Type System articles already. As for including a reference to them, the policy is Wikipedia:Summary style. That means the article that depends on information about CLR, CTS, etc. should still explain them a bit.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Comparing the - still incomplete architecture and design principles section - the page will be definately bigger than the Common Language Runtime and Common Type System articles. Summary Style entry can be done nicely for the architecture since it would compress many interesting topics into a paragraph. Regarding notability, I do not get your point completely. The .NET Architecture is not a defined entity like the CTS for example, but nevertheless something ;). From Software Engineering I am used to break out shared entities. --Oaiey (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
First try perusing Template:.NET Framework and Template:Common Language Infrastructure; see if the articles you are looking for are already created. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

'Visual Studio 2015 Update 2' released Mar 30, 2016 should be added[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

.NET Core Modularity Description[edit]

That says:

  ... modular, meaning that instead of assemblies, developers deal with NuGet packages ...

I am not d'accord with that description everything of that is wrong. Hence, both (dotnetcore and the old dotnetfx) build assemblies. Also, i can register my dotnetcore assemblies in the GAC and i can deploy my old dotnetfx assemblies via NuGet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It does not say ".NET Core has no assemblies". It just says developers deal with NuGet packages instead. NuGet packages group related assemblies together.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)