c# performance framework - .NET Core vs Mono
In the .NET world there are two types of CLRs, "full" CLRs and Core CLRs, and these are quite different things.
There are two "full" CLR implementations, the Microsoft native .NET CLR (for Windows) and the Mono CLR (which itself has implementations for Windows, linux and unix (Mac OS X and FreeBSD)). A full CLR is exactly that - everything, pretty much, that you need. As such, "full" CLRs tend to be large in size.
Core CLRs are on the other hand are cut down, and much smaller. Because they are only a core implementation, they are unlikely to have everything you need in them, so with Core CLRs you add feature sets to the CLR that your specific software product uses, using NuGet. There are Core CLR implementations for Windows, linux (various) and unix (Mac OS X and FreeBSD) in the mix. Microsoft have or are refactoring the .NET framework libraries for Core CLR too, to make them more portable for the core context. Given mono's presence on *nix OSs it would be a surprise if the Core CLRs for *nix did not include some mono code base, but only the Mono community and Microsoft could tell us that for sure.
Also, I'd concur with Nico in that Core CLRs are new -- it's at RC2 at the moment I think. I wouldn't depend on it for production code yet.
To answer your question you could delivery your site on linux using Core CLR or Mono, and these are two different ways of doing it. If you want a safe bet right now I'd go with mono on linux, then port if you want to later, to Core.
What is the difference between .NET Core and Mono?
I found a statement on the official site that said: "Code written for it is also portable across application stacks, such as Mono."
My goal is to use C#, LINQ, EF7 and Visual Studio to create a website that can be ran/hosted on Linux.
Someone told me that he wanted it to be "in Mono", but I don't know what that means. I know I want to use the .NET Core 1.0 with the technologies I listed above. He also said he wanted to use "fast CGI". I don't know what that means either.
Can you help me make sense of all these terms and if my expectations are realistic?
.Net Core does not require mono in the sense of the mono framework. .Net Core is a framework that will work on multiple platforms including Linux. Reference https://dotnet.github.io/.
However the .Net core can use the mono framework. Reference https://docs.asp.net/en/1.0.0-rc1/getting-started/choosing-the-right-dotnet.html (note rc1 documentatiopn no rc2 available), however mono is not a Microsoft supported framework and would recommend using a supported framework
Now entity framework 7 is now called
Entity Framework Core and is available on multiple platforms including Linux. Reference https://github.com/aspnet/EntityFramework (review the road map)
I am currently using both of these frameworks however you must understand that it is still in release candidate stage (
RC2 is the current version) and over the beta & release candidates there have been massive changes that usually end up with you scratching your head.
Here is a tutorial on how to install MVC .Net Core into Linux. https://docs.asp.net/en/1.0.0-rc1/getting-started/installing-on-linux.html
Finally you have a choice of Web Servers (where I am assuming the
fast cgi reference came from) to host your application on Linux. Here is a reference point for installing to a Linux enviroment. https://docs.asp.net/en/1.0.0-rc1/publishing/linuxproduction.html
I realise this post ends up being mostly links to documentation but at this point those are your best sources of information. .Net core is still relatively new in the .Net community and until its fully released I would be hesitant to use it in a product environment given the breaking changes between released version.
To be simple,
Mono is third party implementation of .Net framework for Linux/Android/iOs
.Net Core is microsoft's own implementation for same.
.Net Core is future. and Mono will be dead eventually. Having said that .Net Core is not matured enough. I was struggling to implement it with IBM Bluemix and later dropped the idea. Down the time (may be 1-2 years), it should be better.