try-convert
.NET Runtime
try-convert | .NET Runtime | |
---|---|---|
13 | 612 | |
1,142 | 14,231 | |
- | 2.2% | |
0.0 | 10.0 | |
4 days ago | 6 days ago | |
C# | C# | |
MIT License | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
try-convert
-
Understanding the .NET ecosystem: The evolution of .NET into .NET 7
dotnet upgrade assistant or dotnet try-convert can help with that.
- dotnet try-convert: https://github.com/dotnet/try-convert
-
converting framework4.8 webapps to NetCore (Net5,6,7). any apps available to help?
try-convert
- Winforms .Net Framework 4.6 Application to .Net 6
-
What shall I upgrade .Net Framework 4.5.2 to for my WinForm project?
Check out https://github.com/dotnet/try-convert
-
I'm used to .NET Framework. Should I try to learn .NET Core?
https://github.com/dotnet/try-convert (usually) makes this a breeze.
-
Moving from .NET Framework to .NET 6
I'm looking to move one of our software suites from .NET Framework 4.7 to .NET 6. A lot of online guides recommend starting with the Microsoft conversion tools to ease/speed up the process. There seem to be two tools that are used for it try-convert and upgrade-assistant. However, I'm not sure I understand the difference between them and when should I use which tool (assuming that it matters).
-
.NET MAUI: Leveraging UIs Across Devices
That would mean you have pretty simple code then, relatively speaking. I helped write the underlying project conversion tool used in the Migration Assistant and found that there's a lot of big and incompatible differences well before you even get into which APIs you're using. Lots of enterprise apps end up using them, whether or not the authors of those apps are aware of it.
-
Advice: Modernizing Old Application Architectures
migrate to SDK-style project files - try-convert does wonders here
-
Help with trying to get a .NetFramework project running in VS2022
Are you using .NET SDK-style projects, or the old scary ones? The latter should load, but since you can't even create them anymore I would expect them to bit rot over time. The try-convert tool should be able to help with that (I wrote most of it, plus the F# support!)
-
Date, Time, and Time Zone Enhancements in .NET 6
there's https://github.com/dotnet/try-convert. Haven't tried it; I instead use https://github.com/hvanbakel/CsprojToVs2017, but I assume the former might be a better choice by now.
.NET Runtime
-
The search for easier safe systems programming
.NET has explicit tailcalls - they are heavily used by and were made for F#.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.reflecti...
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/feat...
-
Arena-Based Parsers
The description indicates it is not production ready, and is archived at the same time.
If you pull all stops in each respective language, C# will always end up winning at parsing text as it offers C structs, pointers, zero-cost interop, Rust-style struct generics, cross-platform SIMD API and simply has better compiler. You can win back some performance in Go by writing hot parts in Go's ASM dialect at much greater effort for a specific platform.
For example, Go has to resort to this https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f... in order to efficiently scan memory, while in C# you write the following once and it compiles to all supported ISAs with their respective SIMD instructions for a given vector width: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (there is a lot of code because C# covers much wider range of scenarios and does not accept sacrificing performance in odd lengths and edge cases, which Go does).
Another example is computing CRC32: you have to write ASM for Go https://github.com/golang/go/blob/4ed358b57efdad9ed710be7f4f..., in C# you simply write standard vectorized routine once https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/56e67a7aacb8a644cc6b8... (its codegen is competitive with hand-intrinsified C++ code).
There is a lot more of this. Performance and low-level primitives to achieve it have been an area of focus of .NET for a long time, so it is disheartening to see one tenth of effort in Go to receive so much spotlight.
-
Airline keeps mistaking 101-year-old woman for baby
It's an interesting "time is a circle" problem given that a century only has 100 years and then we loop around again. 2-digit years is convenient for people in many situations but they are very lossy, and horrible for machines.
It reminds me of this breaking change to .Net from last year.[1][2] Maybe AA just needs to update .Net which would pad them out until the 2050's when someone born in the 1950s would be having...exactly the same problem in the article. (It is configurable now so you could just keep pushing it each decade, until it wraps again).
Or they could use 4-digit years.
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/75148
-
The software industry rapidly convergng on 3 languages: Go, Rust, and JavaScript
These can also be passed as arguments to `dotnet publish` if necessary.
Reference:
- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...
- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/nati...
- https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/5b4e770daa190ce69f402... (full list of recognized keys for IlcInstructionSet)
-
The Performance Impact of C++'s `final` Keyword
Yes, that is true. I'm not sure about JVM implementation details but the reason the comment says "virtual and interface" calls is to outline the difference. Virtual calls in .NET are sufficiently close[0] to virtual calls in C++. Interface calls, however, are coded differently[1].
Also you are correct - virtual calls are not terribly expensive, but they encroach on ever limited* CPU resources like indirect jump and load predictors and, as noted in parent comments, block inlining, which is highly undesirable for small and frequently called methods, particularly when they are in a loop.
* through great effort of our industry to take back whatever performance wins each generation brings with even more abstractions that fail to improve our productivity
[0] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/4895a06c/src/vm/amd64...
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/docs/design/core... (mind you, the text was initially written 18 ago, wow)
-
Java 23: The New Features Are Officially Announced
If you care about portable SIMD and performance, you may want to save yourself trouble and skip to C# instead, it also has an extensive guide to using it: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/69110bfdcf5590db1d32c...
CoreLib and many new libraries are using it heavily to match performance of manually intensified C++ code.
-
Locally test and validate your Renovate configuration files
DEBUG: packageFiles with updates (repository=local) "config": { "nuget": [ { "deps": [ { "datasource": "nuget", "depType": "nuget", "depName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "currentValue": "7.0.0", "updates": [ { "bucket": "non-major", "newVersion": "7.0.1", "newValue": "7.0.1", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-02-14T13:21:52.713Z", "newMajor": 7, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "patch", "branchName": "renovate/dotnet-monorepo" }, { "bucket": "major", "newVersion": "8.0.0", "newValue": "8.0.0", "releaseTimestamp": "2023-11-14T13:23:17.653Z", "newMajor": 8, "newMinor": 0, "updateType": "major", "branchName": "renovate/major-dotnet-monorepo" } ], "packageName": "Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting", "versioning": "nuget", "warnings": [], "sourceUrl": "https://github.com/dotnet/runtime", "registryUrl": "https://api.nuget.org/v3/index.json", "homepage": "https://dot.net/", "currentVersion": "7.0.0", "isSingleVersion": true, "fixedVersion": "7.0.0" } ], "packageFile": "RenovateDemo.csproj" } ] }
-
Chrome Feature: ZSTD Content-Encoding
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/59591
Support zstd Content-Encoding:
- Writing x86 SIMD using x86inc.asm (2017)
-
Why choose async/await over threads?
We might not be that far away already. There is this issue[1] on Github, where Microsoft and the community discuss some significant changes.
There is still a lot of questions unanswered, but initial tests look promising.
Ref: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/94620
What are some alternatives?
NsDepCop - NsDepCop is a static code analysis tool that helps to enforce namespace dependency rules in C# projects. No more unplanned or unnoticed dependencies in your system.
Ryujinx - Experimental Nintendo Switch Emulator written in C#
CsprojToVs2017 - Tooling for converting pre 2017 project to the new Visual Studio 2017 format.
ASP.NET Core - ASP.NET Core is a cross-platform .NET framework for building modern cloud-based web applications on Windows, Mac, or Linux.
upgrade-assistant - A tool to assist developers in upgrading .NET Framework applications to .NET 6 and beyond
actix-web - Actix Web is a powerful, pragmatic, and extremely fast web framework for Rust.
mpv.net - 🎞 mpv.net is a media player for Windows with a modern GUI.
WASI - WebAssembly System Interface
ReactiveUI - An advanced, composable, functional reactive model-view-viewmodel framework for all .NET platforms that is inspired by functional reactive programming. ReactiveUI allows you to abstract mutable state away from your user interfaces, express the idea around a feature in one readable place and improve the testability of your application.
CoreCLR - CoreCLR is the runtime for .NET Core. It includes the garbage collector, JIT compiler, primitive data types and low-level classes.
ClojureDart - Clojure dialect for Flutter and Dart
vgpu_unlock - Unlock vGPU functionality for consumer grade GPUs.