4 ms·

> most of the shiny new stuff is coming out on .NET Core first I hadn't fully appreciated prior to this post that .NET Core has things that aren't in .NET Fram

> most of the shiny new stuff is coming out on .NET Core first I hadn't fully appreciated prior to this post that .NET Core has things that aren't in .NET Framework, let alone .NET Standard. I thought it was a portable subset (a core, if you will) of the full .NET languages and APIs. I don't know whether that makes me more interested in Core, but I'm certainly less inclined to target any other flavor.

Nelkins 8y ago
ha, Yes it often seems that MS is intentionally trying to confuse developers with their naming. I truly do not understand it. Then again, two hard problems in CS, etc. etc.
WorldMaker 8y ago
Core is one of those Microsoft branding words that wound up used everywhere, denotes one thing, but means almost something else entirely. (Not unlike the .NET brand itself in its early years.) In the developer side Core has meant "open source rewrites that can break backward compatibility to move forward". (Windows has also had several Core-branded things, at least as internal brands that have externally leaked over the last few years or been used to describe Windows Insider initiatives, but there they seem to more actually mean "core" as denoted as pure subset, though it sounds often in those cases they did imply nearly-from-scratch rewrites like the Developer initiatives with that branding.)
- svick 8y ago
  Well, .Net Core started as a subset of .Net Framework APIs. Now that they're adding a lot of them back with .Net Core 2.0 and 3.0, it's no longer accurate. Though ASP.NET Core was never really a subset of ASP.NET.
  - WorldMaker 8y ago
    .NET Core was never a pure subset of .NET Framework API: it broke compatibility in some places, and it had new features/capabilities in others, leaving the full .NET Framework to catch up on those. (There's an interesting overview of some of that in the histories of the .NET Standard versions < 2, when it sometimes felt unsure if the Full .NET Framework would be .NET Standard compatible, because .NET Core had the wheel on .NET Standard.)

Nelkins 8y ago

ha, Yes it often seems that MS is intentionally trying to confuse developers with their naming. I truly do not understand it. Then again, two hard problems in CS, etc. etc.

WorldMaker 8y ago

Core is one of those Microsoft branding words that wound up used everywhere, denotes one thing, but means almost something else entirely. (Not unlike the .NET brand itself in its early years.) In the developer side Core has meant "open source rewrites that can break backward compatibility to move forward". (Windows has also had several Core-branded things, at least as internal brands that have externally leaked over the last few years or been used to describe Windows Insider initiatives, but there they seem to more actually mean "core" as denoted as pure subset, though it sounds often in those cases they did imply nearly-from-scratch rewrites like the Developer initiatives with that branding.)

svick 8y ago
Well, .Net Core started as a subset of .Net Framework APIs. Now that they're adding a lot of them back with .Net Core 2.0 and 3.0, it's no longer accurate. Though ASP.NET Core was never really a subset of ASP.NET.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  .NET Core was never a pure subset of .NET Framework API: it broke compatibility in some places, and it had new features/capabilities in others, leaving the full .NET Framework to catch up on those. (There's an interesting overview of some of that in the histories of the .NET Standard versions < 2, when it sometimes felt unsure if the Full .NET Framework would be .NET Standard compatible, because .NET Core had the wheel on .NET Standard.)