Introduction
In the world of Microsoft development, three terms often surface: .NET Framework, .NET Core, and .NET Standard. All are integrally linked to the .NET ecosystem, but each serves a different purpose.
.NET Framework: The Matured Veteran
Brief History and Evolution
Born out of Microsoft's need to compete with Java's platform independence, the .NET Framework was introduced in 2002. The framework essentially served as a runtime environment for executing Microsoft Intermediate Language (MSIL) code and provided a vast collection of pre-built classes and libraries.
While the .NET Framework continued to evolve swiftly, mostly in parallel with new Windows releases, it remained a Windows-only development framework. Consequently, Microsoft developers seeking to build cross-platform applications had to resort to alternative solutions.
Need for .NET Framework
The .NET Framework provided a consistent, high-productivity environment for building applications on Windows. It opened up opportunities for less complex development, safer code execution, simplified deployment, and enhanced performance.
.NET Core: The Open-Source Trailblazer
Brief History and Evolution
.NET Core was introduced in 2016 to address the growing need for a more modern, simplified, cross-platform, open-source development platform. This new framework was not an update to the .NET Framework, but an entirely new platform that borrowed much from its seasoned predecessor while removing the Windows-only constraint.
Need for .NET Core
.NET Core empowered developers to create applications that run on macOS and Linux in addition to Windows, making cross-platform development within the Microsoft ecosystem feasible. .NET Core also placed a strong emphasis on command-line tooling, compatibility with modern web protocols, and cloud-based deployments.
.NET Standard: The Bridge-Builder
Brief History and Evolution
With the introduction of .NET Core, the Microsoft world now had two distinct – yet similar – development frameworks. There existed a need to unify APIs and create consistency across these platforms. Thus, the .NET Standard was developed.
Need for .NET Standard
.NET Standard serves as a formal specification for .NET APIs across all .NET platforms, including .NET Framework, .NET Core, and Xamarin. It's a single unified library that enables developers to produce code that can run on any .NET platform.
Comparing .NET Framework, .NET Core, and .NET Standard
Each of these technologies serves a separate purpose:
- .NET Framework is great for building Windows desktop applications and games. It also supports ASP.NET applications for building web-based applications, but it is Windows-only and less suitable for modern, cloud-based, and multiplatform applications.
- .NET Core is a cross-platform, high-performance, open-source framework for building modern, cloud-based, and Internet-connected applications. It provides a multiplatform framework for web apps and services, but lacks support for older Windows technologies used in desktop application development.
- .NET Standard is not by itself a framework. It's a specification—a formal list of APIs that are common to each .NET implementation. It unifies the .NET platforms and prevents future fragmentation. If you're building a library that needs to run on all .NET runtimes, then .NET Standard is your absolute choice.
Conclusion
The choice between .NET Core and the .NET Framework mostly depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you're developing a new application and wish to take advantage of the cross-platform and high-performance features of .NET Core, it's your best choice. However, if you're building a new feature for an existing .NET Framework application, the .NET Framework would likely be the better option.
.NET Standard, on the other hand, is exceptionally useful when your code needs to run on different .NET platforms. As a bridge between frameworks, it plays a crucial role in the interoperability of libraries, ensuring that your library code can be consumed by all .NET applications, regardless of the platform they run on.