4 ms·

Wait, you're complaining about things that are so because it was a very early preview version? You should never rely on early versions of something for critica

by pionar 10y ago

Wait, you're complaining about things that are so because it was a very early preview version? You should never rely on early versions of something for critical, production projects without recognizing the risk.

tacos 10y ago
It was labelled Release Candidate 1. They really did make a mess of this one.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  And it was a valid Release Candidate, they could have gone live with it. A bigger strategic decision was made to take various concepts from it and apply them to .Net in general not just web specific things. At the same time it gave the ASP team more time to tidy things up and be more consistent in terms of new patterns in a few places. Microsoft was open very quickly that they were making big changes and that RC1 was going to look very different from 1.0. There has been some chaos but it means we are all going to end up with a 1.0 release that is much better, rather than getting a breaking 2.0 release in short order afterwards. It should never be assumed that a Release Candidate is going to make it into production, especially from an enterprise software vendor launching a new product. If the lasting legacy of this is more people taking that on board then that will be a good thing.
  - spriggan3 10y ago
    > And it was a valid Release Candidate I think they messed up calling it a RC1 and leaving it as it is for so long. People started writing drivers and what not and were confident that the stack wouldn't change too much, now they are going to wait the official release (i.e. at least a year) because the trust is broken. They should have called it a beta and not let it live for like a year. You don't do that. > It should never be assumed that a Release Candidate is going to make it into production Of course, but release candidate also means that there wont be any significant change in the tooling or philosophy. RC2 has completely different tooling and the code is completely incompatible. It doesn't build up trust.
ygra 10y ago
... or at least ask the developers how the roadmap looks like and what they intend to break, overhaul, etc. For example, working with Roslyn was a great experience even though we started our project when it was still in beta. Simply because the developers noted that even though it's beta the API is already fairly stable. There were a few things that still changed, but nothing that wasn't fixed in our code ten minutes later.
danielvf 10y ago
I know, right! However I've shipped a Rails application that's started from a zip file I begged off DHH before Rails was even publicly available, and maintained it for years. I've used Django for a real app within a month or two of the first available Django release, and maintained to this day. Etc. .NET Core goes beyond bleeding edge to point at which you start to wonder in your more crazed hours if it's actually just a parody of a poorly developed node.js library.

by pionar 10y ago

tacos 10y ago

It was labelled Release Candidate 1. They really did make a mess of this one.

cmdkeen 10y ago
And it was a valid Release Candidate, they could have gone live with it. A bigger strategic decision was made to take various concepts from it and apply them to .Net in general not just web specific things. At the same time it gave the ASP team more time to tidy things up and be more consistent in terms of new patterns in a few places. Microsoft was open very quickly that they were making big changes and that RC1 was going to look very different from 1.0. There has been some chaos but it means we are all going to end up with a 1.0 release that is much better, rather than getting a breaking 2.0 release in short order afterwards. It should never be assumed that a Release Candidate is going to make it into production, especially from an enterprise software vendor launching a new product. If the lasting legacy of this is more people taking that on board then that will be a good thing.
- spriggan3 10y ago
  > And it was a valid Release Candidate I think they messed up calling it a RC1 and leaving it as it is for so long. People started writing drivers and what not and were confident that the stack wouldn't change too much, now they are going to wait the official release (i.e. at least a year) because the trust is broken. They should have called it a beta and not let it live for like a year. You don't do that. > It should never be assumed that a Release Candidate is going to make it into production Of course, but release candidate also means that there wont be any significant change in the tooling or philosophy. RC2 has completely different tooling and the code is completely incompatible. It doesn't build up trust.

ygra 10y ago

... or at least ask the developers how the roadmap looks like and what they intend to break, overhaul, etc. For example, working with Roslyn was a great experience even though we started our project when it was still in beta. Simply because the developers noted that even though it's beta the API is already fairly stable. There were a few things that still changed, but nothing that wasn't fixed in our code ten minutes later.

danielvf 10y ago

I know, right! However I've shipped a Rails application that's started from a zip file I begged off DHH before Rails was even publicly available, and maintained it for years. I've used Django for a real app within a month or two of the first available Django release, and maintained to this day. Etc. .NET Core goes beyond bleeding edge to point at which you start to wonder in your more crazed hours if it's actually just a parody of a poorly developed node.js library.