Poll: what platforms should Math.NET Numerics support?


(Christoph Rüegg) #1

I wonder whether there are any developers out there still requiring .Net 3.5 or Silverlight 5.0 support for future Math.NET Numerics versions (v4 and later), and whether there is any demand for .Net vNext already (whatever that means). What platform are you using Math.NET Numerics on, or would like to?

  • .Net 3.5 (net35)
  • .Net 4.0 (net40)
  • .Net 4.5 (net45)
  • .Net 4.6 (net46)
  • Silverlight 5.0 (sl5)
  • WindowsPhone 8.0/Silverlight (wp8)
  • WindowsPhone 8.1 (wpa81)
  • Windows 8 Apps (netcore45)
  • Windows 10/UWP Apps (netcore50)
  • Asp.Net 5.0 Full (e.g. dnx46)
  • Asp.Net 5.0 Core (dnxcore50)
  • Portable/PCL Profile 7
  • Portable/PCL Profile 47
  • Portable/PCL Profile 78
  • Portable/PCL Profile 259 (supported by new .Net Core)
  • Portable/PCL Profile 328
  • Xamarin.Android
  • Xamarin.iOS

0 voters

Let me know if something is missing in the list…


Supporting .Net Standard
(Christoph Rüegg) #2

I’m also considering moving back to targeting more platforms directly instead of shipping 4 different PCL profiles. Let me know if this would have any impact to you.


(Christoph Rüegg) #3

(Kuan Bartel) #4

Have you considered a bait and switch approach to PCL rather than having so many profiles which won’t be used?


(Christoph Rüegg) #5

Yes, that would be an option - at least if it turns out we still need to support more PCL profiles than the 259 one. In general I’d prefer to support/target platforms more “natively” than via PCL only again, which is in line with bait & switch.

What is still quite unclear to me is how vNext and it’s new virtual “dotnet” NuGet framework discriminator will be able to handle bait & switch packages (especially since they’ll have different dependencies between platforms).


(Christoph Rüegg) #6

Might be relevant here: .NET Platform Standards (effectively PCL successor)


(Thabo Mokhahle) #7

i think i will be cool if Numerics becomes available for unity engine


(Christoph Rüegg) #8

I’ve never tried Unity myself, but was under the impression Math.NET Numerics works in unity out of the box. Is there a specific error you are running into?


(Fay Huang) #9

Will it support .Net 4.6?


(Christoph Rüegg) #10

Yes - it already does (even though it does not yet leverage anything new provided by it).


(Paul Lewis) #11

.NET Standard 2.0 please…


(Christoph Rüegg) #12

Yes. Quite a lot has happened since this poll was started. The short time plan for now is to keep the existing targets but add netstandard20, then add an up to date net46 or net47 so we can leverage SIMD, and then hopefully drop the PCLs and also net35 at some point.


#13

Hi. Keep up the good work!

.Net 4.6, .Net 4.7 and especially .Net Standard 2.0 (and its derivatives) please. :slight_smile:


(Alex Birch) #14

.Net Standard 2.0 please

If there’s anything we can do to help expedite this please let me know. Is there a discussion page outlining the work to be done?


(Christoph Rüegg) #15

FYI, the first alphas of v4 with support for .Net Standard 1.3/2.0 are available on NuGet.


(Colin Green) #16

Somewhat related - there’s a whole bunch of work going on to expose a much wider set of hardware accelerated ‘intrinsics’ than are available through the System.Numerics types/classes. As I understand it the work to do this is mostly done now so there’s a chance it will be in the next release of dotnetcore, Framework and maybe/hopefully the .NET Standard. I suspect there will be many areas where this intrinsics API will be a better fit than the existing (and limited) SIMD support.

I think this is the main github issue where the work is being tracked: