3 ms·

Same here - this quote sums it up quite well: We built on top of ASP.NET Core because of the option to use it with netfx, and we built things which were intend

Same here - this quote sums it up quite well: We built on top of ASP.NET Core because of the option to use it with netfx, and we built things which were intended to last 5-10 years, not for 1 year of support max. This is what the ASP.NET name means in business and it's why large, slow-moving organisations choose it over flavour of the month frameworks. They should take a look at MS history and look back at the Windows Mobile (6) -> Windows Phone transition for what can happen worst case when you crap all over your enterprise customers.

rogihee 9y ago
Let's not forget the Silverlight debacle too, that made a looooot of entreprise people unhappy.
- dahauns 9y ago
  And yet, Silverlight is still officially supported until 2021...
  - rogihee 9y ago
    Have you tried using it in VS2017? Nowhere to be seen. The runtime is supported yes, but you try combining and debugging a Silverlight solution with a .Net Core web app.
    - dahauns 9y ago
      Of course - I was actually surprised it still worked in VS2015. I don't expect it to be forwards compatible. (Hell, we're talking about tech that only runs in IE11 :) ) But one big difference is: Official support means updates in case of critical vulnerabilities and guarantees that, at least with IE11, it won't simply stop working after an update. ASP.Net Core 1.x won't have any such guarantees after 2018. And that's kinda hefty when the ASP.NET Core website (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/) still refers to this page for guidelines as to which .NET Runtime to choose for ASP.Net Core(!) projects: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/standard/choosing-core-framework-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/articles/standard/ch...