4 ms·

The naming has been awful with this release in particular. Having two Visual Studio (20)15s out at the same time is very confusing. Almost as bad as the Skype

by douche 10y ago

The naming has been awful with this release in particular. Having two Visual Studio (20)15s out at the same time is very confusing. Almost as bad as the Skype vs Skype for Business marketing boondoggle.

cptskippy 10y ago
There's some sick bastard in Microsoft who really likes these confusing sames. He's probably the same guy who came up with .NET. Remember when .NET could refer to virtually every product Microsoft made? I was half expecting them to call it Visual Studio Surface. Then you could run Surface on your Surface on any Surface on the planet.
- billforsternz 10y ago
  Indeed, .NET must be the worst, most misleading, least googleable product name ever. I suppose we should be grateful that MS called an earliest technology COM not .COM.
  - Maarten88 10y ago
    I must say Google handles it well. I'm searching with these terms quite often and Google knows .NET == dotnet ~ C# and finds results without much problems.
    - uabstraction 10y ago
      Google is terrifyingly good at finding relevant developer documentation. I'm convinced it will be writing software for us in a couple years.
  - erikbye 10y ago
    The first result I get googling for ".net" is the Wikipedia article ".NET Framework". The first result I get for "COM" (or "com") is Microsoft's page on "COM: Component Object Model Technologies". Honestly, I have never had a problem googling .NET and COM-related stuff.
    - cptskippy 10y ago
      It was mostly a problem when you were having a conversation with someone that went something like... "So I was installing .NET and it failed because I didn't have the right drivers for my SCSI card." "What? I've never needed disk drivers to install .NET, which version was it? 1.1?" "No, it was 2003" or... "Can you install .NET on my PC?" "Sure, done" "Where's Word and Excel?" "What?"
    - int_19h 10y ago
      This is after it became popular, and Google (I assume) just special-cased it. Back when it first came out, though, typing that into any search engine we had back then would mostly just give you tons of domain names that end with ".net". Then also, we had Office .NET, Visual Studio .NET (with Visual Studio .NET 2003 added later), and pre-release versions of what was to ship asWindows Server 2003 were known as Windows .NET Server for a while. Web services (the SOAP and XML kind) were the next big thing back then, at least as far as Microsoft was concerned, and so the entire software stack was promoted as conceptually centered around that - hence the .NET name. Kinda ironic, what with the rise of cloud computing later, when .NET brand was already toned down to refer to the framework specifically, and the consequent need to invent "Azure".
      - erikbye 10y ago
        Back then I just used MSDN.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    It could have been worse. The original internal name for .NET before the rebranding was COM+ 2.0, if I remember correctly. You can still see some legacy of that in names like COMPLUS_ZAPDISABLE (an environment variable that disables loading of ngen'd assemblies by the CLR). Somewhat more indirectly, it also surfaced in low-level native APIs used to host CLR inside an app, with names like ICorRuntimeHost - if I remember correctly, COR here stands for Common Object Runtime. Also seen in mscorlib.dll (the assembly containing the most fundamental types, which is the top node in any CLI assembly dependency graph) and mscoree.dll (EE = execution engine). Oh, and C# was COOL (C-like Object-Oriented Language).
- douche 10y ago
  > confusing sames I can't tell if that's a typo or intentional. I might start calling them that.
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    I am at my cleverest when it's completely by accident.
- kodfodrasz 10y ago
  On the other hand if you want an SQL server how does MS call it? SQL Server. Unlike for AWS you don't need a glossary to get around in Azure. (At least less so) This is why this disparity in naming thing very simply and straightforward and mind-boggingly badly is incomprehensible for me.
- 72deluxe 10y ago
  Ah yes Office .Net. Such confusion. They then went and tagged "Live" on everything.

by douche 10y ago

cptskippy 10y ago

There's some sick bastard in Microsoft who really likes these confusing sames. He's probably the same guy who came up with .NET. Remember when .NET could refer to virtually every product Microsoft made? I was half expecting them to call it Visual Studio Surface. Then you could run Surface on your Surface on any Surface on the planet.

billforsternz 10y ago
Indeed, .NET must be the worst, most misleading, least googleable product name ever. I suppose we should be grateful that MS called an earliest technology COM not .COM.
- Maarten88 10y ago
  I must say Google handles it well. I'm searching with these terms quite often and Google knows .NET == dotnet ~ C# and finds results without much problems.
  - uabstraction 10y ago
    Google is terrifyingly good at finding relevant developer documentation. I'm convinced it will be writing software for us in a couple years.
- erikbye 10y ago
  The first result I get googling for ".net" is the Wikipedia article ".NET Framework". The first result I get for "COM" (or "com") is Microsoft's page on "COM: Component Object Model Technologies". Honestly, I have never had a problem googling .NET and COM-related stuff.
  - cptskippy 10y ago
    It was mostly a problem when you were having a conversation with someone that went something like... "So I was installing .NET and it failed because I didn't have the right drivers for my SCSI card." "What? I've never needed disk drivers to install .NET, which version was it? 1.1?" "No, it was 2003" or... "Can you install .NET on my PC?" "Sure, done" "Where's Word and Excel?" "What?"
  - int_19h 10y ago
    This is after it became popular, and Google (I assume) just special-cased it. Back when it first came out, though, typing that into any search engine we had back then would mostly just give you tons of domain names that end with ".net". Then also, we had Office .NET, Visual Studio .NET (with Visual Studio .NET 2003 added later), and pre-release versions of what was to ship asWindows Server 2003 were known as Windows .NET Server for a while. Web services (the SOAP and XML kind) were the next big thing back then, at least as far as Microsoft was concerned, and so the entire software stack was promoted as conceptually centered around that - hence the .NET name. Kinda ironic, what with the rise of cloud computing later, when .NET brand was already toned down to refer to the framework specifically, and the consequent need to invent "Azure".
    - erikbye 10y ago
      Back then I just used MSDN.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It could have been worse. The original internal name for .NET before the rebranding was COM+ 2.0, if I remember correctly. You can still see some legacy of that in names like COMPLUS_ZAPDISABLE (an environment variable that disables loading of ngen'd assemblies by the CLR). Somewhat more indirectly, it also surfaced in low-level native APIs used to host CLR inside an app, with names like ICorRuntimeHost - if I remember correctly, COR here stands for Common Object Runtime. Also seen in mscorlib.dll (the assembly containing the most fundamental types, which is the top node in any CLI assembly dependency graph) and mscoree.dll (EE = execution engine). Oh, and C# was COOL (C-like Object-Oriented Language).
douche 10y ago
> confusing sames I can't tell if that's a typo or intentional. I might start calling them that.
- cptskippy 10y ago
  I am at my cleverest when it's completely by accident.
kodfodrasz 10y ago
On the other hand if you want an SQL server how does MS call it? SQL Server. Unlike for AWS you don't need a glossary to get around in Azure. (At least less so) This is why this disparity in naming thing very simply and straightforward and mind-boggingly badly is incomprehensible for me.
72deluxe 10y ago
Ah yes Office .Net. Such confusion. They then went and tagged "Live" on everything.