Pros of runtime

• Broader scope, covering the entire .NET runtime and core libraries
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Official Microsoft support and integration with .NET ecosystem

Cons of runtime

• More complex and harder to contribute to due to its size
• May include unnecessary components for workflow-specific use cases
• Steeper learning curve for developers focused solely on workflow functionality

Code Comparison

CoreWF:

Activity workflow = new Sequence
{
    Activities = 
    {
        new WriteLine { Text = "Hello from CoreWF!" }
    }
};

runtime:

using System.Threading.Tasks;
using Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting;

await Host.CreateDefaultBuilder(args)
    .ConfigureServices((hostContext, services) => {
        // Configure services
    })
    .RunConsoleAsync();

Summary

CoreWF is a focused workflow engine, while runtime is a comprehensive .NET runtime implementation. CoreWF offers simplicity and workflow-specific features, whereas runtime provides a complete .NET development environment with broader capabilities. Choose CoreWF for workflow-centric projects and runtime for full-scale .NET applications.

Pros of Cecil

• Focused on .NET assembly manipulation and inspection
• Lightweight and efficient for working with IL code
• Widely used and battle-tested in many projects

Cons of Cecil

• Limited scope compared to CoreWF's workflow capabilities
• Requires more low-level knowledge of .NET internals
• Less suitable for high-level business process modeling

Code Comparison

Cecil (assembly manipulation):

var assembly = AssemblyDefinition.ReadAssembly("MyAssembly.dll");
var type = assembly.MainModule.Types.First(t => t.Name == "MyClass");
var method = type.Methods.First(m => m.Name == "MyMethod");

CoreWF (workflow definition):

var workflow = new Sequence
{
    Activities =
    {
        new WriteLine { Text = "Hello World" },
        new Delay { Duration = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1) }
    }
};

Summary

Cecil is a powerful library for .NET assembly manipulation, while CoreWF focuses on workflow creation and execution. Cecil is more suitable for low-level bytecode analysis and modification, whereas CoreWF is better for modeling business processes and complex workflows. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Pros of Roslyn

• Comprehensive C# and Visual Basic compiler platform
• Extensive API for code analysis and manipulation
• Large, active community and Microsoft backing

Cons of Roslyn

• Steeper learning curve due to complexity
• Larger codebase and resource requirements
• May be overkill for simpler workflow scenarios

Code Comparison

Roslyn (C# syntax analysis):

SyntaxTree tree = CSharpSyntaxTree.ParseText("class Program { }");
var root = (CompilationUnitSyntax)tree.GetRoot();
var classDeclaration = root.DescendantNodes().OfType<ClassDeclarationSyntax>().First();

CoreWF (workflow definition):

var workflow = new Sequence
{
    Activities = { new WriteLine { Text = "Hello, World!" } }
};

Summary

Roslyn is a powerful compiler platform for .NET languages, offering extensive capabilities for code analysis and manipulation. CoreWF, on the other hand, focuses on workflow management and execution. While Roslyn provides more comprehensive language tools, CoreWF offers a simpler approach for defining and running workflows. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, with Roslyn being better suited for complex language-related tasks and CoreWF for workflow-centric applications.

Pros of referencesource

• Comprehensive source code for .NET Framework, providing insights into core functionality
• Maintained by Microsoft, ensuring high-quality and official implementation
• Covers a wide range of .NET libraries and components

Cons of referencesource

• Not actively developed or updated, as it's a reference for older .NET Framework versions
• Lacks modern .NET Core and .NET 5+ features and optimizations
• May contain legacy code that's no longer relevant in newer .NET implementations

Code Comparison

referencesource (System.Activities):

public sealed class Workflow : Activity, IPropertyLocationReferenceEnvironment
{
    internal const string WorkflowInstancePropertyName = "WorkflowInstance";
    internal const string WorkflowHostPropertyName = "WorkflowHost";
    internal const string WorkflowEnvironmentPropertyName = "WorkflowEnvironment";
}

CoreWF:

public sealed class WorkflowApplication
{
    public WorkflowApplication(Activity workflow)
    {
        this.Initialize(workflow, null, null, null);
    }
}

The code snippets show different approaches to workflow implementation. referencesource focuses on the Workflow class within the Activity framework, while CoreWF emphasizes the WorkflowApplication class for managing workflow execution.

Pros of mono

• Broader scope and functionality as a complete .NET framework implementation
• Longer development history and larger community support
• Cross-platform compatibility for a wide range of .NET applications

Cons of mono

• Larger codebase and potentially more complex to contribute to
• May have slower release cycles due to its comprehensive nature
• Potentially higher resource usage for simpler applications

Code Comparison

mono:

public class HelloWorld
{
    public static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
    }
}

CoreWF:

public class HelloWorldActivity : CodeActivity
{
    protected override void Execute(CodeActivityContext context)
    {
        Console.WriteLine("Hello World!");
    }
}

The code examples highlight the difference in focus between the two projects. mono provides a full .NET implementation, allowing for traditional console applications, while CoreWF is specifically designed for workflow-based activities.

CoreWF offers a more specialized solution for workflow-related tasks, which can be advantageous for projects primarily focused on workflow management. However, mono's broader scope makes it suitable for a wider range of .NET applications and development scenarios.

Pros of CoreCLR

• Broader scope and functionality as the core runtime for .NET
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• More extensive documentation and resources

Cons of CoreCLR

• Higher complexity and steeper learning curve
• Larger codebase, potentially harder to navigate for specific workflow features
• May include unnecessary components for projects focused solely on workflows

Code Comparison

CoreCLR (runtime initialization):

var runtimeConfig = new ConfigurationBuilder()
    .AddCommandLine(args)
    .Build();
var host = new HostBuilder()
    .UseContentRoot(Directory.GetCurrentDirectory())
    .UseConfiguration(runtimeConfig)
    .Build();

CoreWF (workflow definition):

var workflow = new Sequence
{
    Activities =
    {
        new WriteLine { Text = "Hello World!" }
    }
};
WorkflowInvoker.Invoke(workflow);

Summary

CoreCLR is a comprehensive runtime for .NET applications, while CoreWF focuses specifically on Windows Workflow Foundation functionality. CoreCLR offers broader capabilities but may be overkill for projects centered around workflows. CoreWF provides a more targeted solution for workflow-centric applications but with a narrower scope and potentially fewer resources.