Talk:Framework Class Library

BCL vs. FCL

Base Class Library is much more commonly referred to than Framework Class Library, which is highly generic and should probably always be preceded by .NET. BCL has had an article for the last year, whereas FCL was just added and currently clones the other. It needs a lot of work to justify the dual articles -- if it can be justified. Template:DotNET should definitely link to BCL rather than FCL. --David Gannon (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a copy. But it will not remain one for long. I just wanted to get some material here. I'm waiting for someone to respond to my questions before I continue. My idea is to have a FCL namespace-tree here. And then give each namespace its own article, possible containing a list of its classes and some reading material about it. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course having it all very encyclopedic but not textbook like. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The BCL article contains namespaces outside its definition. It doesn't matter if people commonly refer to the FCL as the BCL, that doesn't turn the FCL into the BCL somehow. A lot of people say that Pepsi tastes like Coke, but we're not going to redirect Pepsi to Coke, are we? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And since the FCL is the superset of the BCL we should have FCL in the template. I intend to remove all the non-BCL namespaces from the article BCL, because the only reason they are there is that someone didn't feel like putting much effort into the job, so the BCL article ended up with false information. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a "BCL vs. FCL" thing. I'm not suggesting that we delete the BCL article, only correct it. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Standard Libraries

It looks like Base Class Library has already been incorporated into the Standard Libraries (CLI) article, even despite some pushback. (See above discussion.) So here's what should be an even less contentious proposal: this short, stubby article doesn't need to exist—it should be merged with the Standard Libraries, too (and be made to redirect there). AFAICS, the distinction between the "Framework Class Library" and the "Standard Libaries" is that the latter refers to the APIs defined in the relevant ECMA standards, and the former refers to the "classic" .NET Framework's implementation of those APIs. The distinction is too subtle and the article too old and its content to short to make any credible argument that this page deserves to exist on its own. So let's merge it. 2605:6000:1019:C064:5473:5A4:4724:3F07 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a good idea. It would be better to merge Common Language Runtime (CLR) and Framework Class Library (FCL) into .NET Framework since they are both components of it and implement parts of Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) (which includes foundational class libraries aka Standard Libraries (CLI)). Your suggestion is similar to proposing to merge Common Language Runtime (CLR) into Virtual Execution System (VES) (which I would also be opposed to). Note: the foundational class libraries are now implemented as CoreFX in .NET Core. 2600:1700:EDB0:A060:F489:6C3D:58C2:C0AF (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)