Replies: 2 comments 3 replies
-
uno.sdk extension increases Uno's learning cost。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
3 replies
-
I referred to AvaloniaUI and my question is why Uno cannot perform Native AOT。 dotnet publish -r win-x64 -c Release -f net9.0-desktop |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
Uno is currently implemented in two ways
Why doesn't Uno use netx.x(netx.x-desktop Cross platform using SkiaSharp) and netx.x-browser (netx.x-browserwasm) to define
Determine the support for netstandard2.0 through SkiaSharp support.
The current extensions of netx.x-browserwasm and netx.x-desktop have increased the complexity of uno. At the same time, it is not friendly to the development of control libraries.
SkiaSharp has a lot of support for the platform, and they may overlap with native controls.
SkiaSharp (SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Win32,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.macOS,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Linux,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.WebAssembly,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Android ,
SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.iOS,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.MacCatalyst,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.UWP,SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.Tizen,
SkiaSharp.NativeAssets.WinUI)
For future new systems, we can distinguish between using native controls or implementing them based on SkiaSharp, such as OpenHarmony
netx.x;netx.x-ios;netx.x-maccatalyst;netx.x-android;netx.x-windows10.0.26100;netx.x-browser
Isn't it better to name it this way
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions