I'm hoping to get more of an answer if TestStand will support .NET Core natively. TestStand and related APIs appear they currently rely on the .NET (full) Framework. Since .NET Core is the future, we are needing to know if/when/how NI will support .NET Core. This would include things like TestStand, Measurement Studio, DAQmx (and other driver libraries), etc..) We are developing internal .NET Core APIs that interact with our company products/processes and it would be great to allow those APIs to be used within TestStand.
It would also be great to see what NI is thinking related to the upcoming WinUI for graphical applications. Understanding WinUI 3 won't be released until .NET Core 5 is released in late 2020, it would be nice to use the NI widgets within a WinUI app built on .NET Core.
.net Core 7.0 Download
DOWNLOAD 🔥 https://bltlly.com/2yGASz 🔥
"Measurement Studio 2019 is not expected to work with .NET Core. NI is currently investigating the best way to support .NET Core across our platform since this impacts more than just MStudio (Drivers, TestStand, etc..). We're working closely with Microsoft and the IVI foundation to ensure we take an approach that considers the long-term health of our products and also compatibility with existing systems. We do not have a detailed roadmap to share at this time."
Its not just the multi-platform support that people are moving to .NET Core for. It is the fact that .NET 4.8 is the last version of the .NET framework as it currently stands to be developed by Microsoft. All future development will be targeted at .NET core, which is effectively what .NET 5.0 incorporates.
I agree that I think the best way to move forward would be to add an adapter that supports calling modules built on .NET Core. It would be great to have some idea of when TestStand will be in a position to support .NET core.
Back before .NET Core 2.0 shipped, I wrote a post highlighting various performance improvements in .NET Core 2.0 when compared with .NET Core 1.1 and the .NET Framework. As .NET Core 2.1 is in its final stages of being released, I thought it would be a good time to have some fun and take a tour through some of the myriad of performance improvements that have found their way into this release.
A lot of work has gone into improving the Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler in .NET Core 2.1, with many optimizations that enhance a wide-range of libraries and applications. Many of these improvements were sought based on needs of the core libraries themselves, giving these improvements both targeted and broad impact.
In many situations, improvements like this in the JIT implicitly show up as improvements in higher-level code. In this specific, case, though, it required the aforementioned change, which updated code like:
This highlights just some of the improvements that have gone into the JIT in .NET Core 2.1. And while each is impressive in its own right, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, as work was done to ensure that all of these optimizations, from devirtualization, to boxing removal, to invocation of the unboxed entry, to inlining, to struct promotion, to copy prop through promoted fields, to cleaning up after unused struct locals, and so on, all play nicely together. Consider this example provided by @AndyAyersMS:
The four allocations have been reduced to one, and the total bytes allocated has shrunk by half. When async methods are used heavily in an application, that savings adds up quickly. There have also been side benefits to the architectural changes that enabled these savings, including improved debuggability.
String.IndexOfAny was also optimized. In contrast to the previous PRs that improved performance via vectorization, PR dotnet/coreclr#13219 from @bbowyersmyth improves the performance of IndexOfAny by special-casing the most commonly-used lengths of the anyOf characters array and adding fast-paths for them:
String.ToLower and ToUpper (as well as the ToLower/UpperInvariant varieties) were improved in PR dotnet/coreclr#17391. As with the previous PR, these were improved by adding fast-paths for common cases. First, if the string passed in is entirely ASCII, then it does all of the computation in managed code and avoids calling out to the native globalization library to do the casing. This in and of itself yields a significant throughput improvement, e.g.
Even some corner cases of String usage saw improvements. For example, some developers use String.Concat(IEnumerable) as a way to compose characters into strings. PR dotnet/coreclr#14298 special-cased T == char in this overload, yielding some nice throughput and allocation wins:
These improvements continue with other parsing and formatting routines. For example, in services in particular, DateTime and DateTimeOffset are often formatted using either the "r" or "o" formats, both of which have been optimized in .NET Core 2.1, via PR dotnet/coreclr#17092:
Even System.Convert has gotten in on the formatting and parsing performance fun, with parsing from Base64 via FromBase64Chars and FromBase64String getting significant speedups, thanks to PR dotnet/coreclr#17033:
At the sockets layer, there have been a variety of improvements, but the impact is most noticeable on Unix, where PRs like dotnet/corefx#23115 and dotnet/corefx#25402 overhauled how socket operations are processed and the allocations they incur. This is visible in the following benchmark that repeatedly does receives that will always complete asynchronously, followed by sends to satisfy them, and which sees a 2x improvement in throughput:
This change internally benefited from the Span-related work done throughout the framework, as did, for example, an improvement to Rfc2898DeriveBytes in System.Security.Cryptography. Rfc2898DeriveBytes computes cryptographic hash codes over and over as part of implementing password-based key derivation functionality. In previous releases, each iteration of that algorithm would result in at least one byte[] allocation, but now with Span-based methods like HashAlgorithm.TryComputeHash, due to PR dotnet/corefx#23269 those allocations are entirely avoided. And that results in dramatic savings, especially for longer iteration counts:
Finally, all of the examples shown throughout this post were already at least as good in .NET Core 2.0 (if not significantly better) as in the .NET Framework 4.7, and then .NET Core 2.1 just made things even better. However, there are a few places where features were missing in .NET Core 2.0 and have been brought back in 2.1, including for performance. One notable such improvement is in Regex, where the Regex.Compiled option was exposed but ignored in .NET Core 2.0. PR dotnet/corefx#24158 brought back the in-memory compilation support for Regex, enabling the same kinds of throughput improvements here previously available in the .NET Framework:
While the first is what we've been using for years, a major point of confusion I've been having is when to use the .NET Standard and .NET Core class library types. I've been bitten by this recently when attempting to multi-target different framework versions, and creating a unit test project.
Use a .NET Standard library when you want to increase the number of applications that will be compatible with your library, and you are okay with a decrease in the .NET API surface area your library can access.
For example, a library that targets .NET Standard 1.3 will be compatible with applications that target .NET Framework 4.6, .NET Core 1.0, Universal Windows Platform 10.0, and any other platform that supports .NET Standard 1.3. The library will not have access to some parts of the .NET API, though. For instance, the Microsoft.NETCore.CoreCLR package is compatible with .NET Core, but not with .NET Standard.
Compatibility: Libraries that target .NET Standard will run on any .NET Standard compliant runtime, such as .NET Core, .NET Framework, Mono/Xamarin. On the other hand, libraries that target .NET Core can only run on the .NET Core runtime.
API Surface Area: .NET Standard libraries come with everything in NETStandard.Library, whereas .NET Core libraries come with everything in Microsoft.NETCore.App. The latter includes approximately 20 additional libraries, some of which we can add manually to our .NET Standard library (such as System.Threading.Thread) and some of which are not compatible with the .NET Standard (such as Microsoft.NETCore.CoreCLR).
Ignoring libraries for a moment, the reason that .NET Standard exists is for portability; it defines a set of APIs that .NET platforms agree to implement. Any platform that implements a .NET Standard is compatible with libraries that target that .NET Standard. One of those compatible platforms is .NET Core.
Coming back to libraries, the .NET Standard library templates exist to run on multiple runtimes (at the expense of API surface area). Conversely, the .NET Core library templates exist to access more API surface area (at the expense of compatibility) and to specify a platform against which to build an executable.
To quote MSDN as an authoritative source, .NET Standard is intended to be One Library to Rule Them All. As pictures are worth a thousand words, the following will make things very clear:
.NET and .NET Core are two different implementations of the .NET runtime. Both Core and Framework (but especially Framework) have different profiles that include larger or smaller (or just plain different) selections of the many APIs and assemblies Microsoft has created for .NET, depending on where they are installed and in what profile.
For example, there are some different APIs available in Universal Windows apps than in the "normal" Windows profile. Even on Windows, you might have the "Client" profile vs. the "Full" profile. Additionally, there are other implementations (like Mono) that have their own sets of libraries.
.NET Standard is a specification for which sets of API libraries and assemblies must be available. An app written for .NET Standard 1.0 should be able to compile and run with any version of Framework, Core, Mono, etc., that publishes support for the .NET Standard 1.0 collection of libraries. Similar is true for .NET Standard 1.1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.0, etc. As long as the runtime provides support for the version of Standard targeted by your program, your program should run there. 152ee80cbc
prison break game download for android