5 ms·

Worst PR move Microsoft could ever take. Developers don't need another Python 2 vs 3 debacle. There should not be .NET Framework. There should not be .NET Core

Worst PR move Microsoft could ever take. Developers don't need another Python 2 vs 3 debacle. There should not be .NET Framework. There should not be .NET Core. There should be .NET, a singular powerful platform that does it all.

Quarrelsome 8y ago
I remember a confused developer looking at a brochure that said: "when to choose WinForm and when to choose WPF". His question was: > why do I have to choose?
manigandham 8y ago
"platform" is vague and doesn't describe much on its own. .NET is vast, and the runtimes are what actually run the code packages on various devices. .NET Framework has been the original Windows implementation and now we have a fast, lightweight and modern cross-platform implementation with .NET Core. It makes sense to consolidate on a single runtime that now works well on Windows and is at 99% parity with legacy features.
- garganzol 8y ago
  .NET Core is not on par. It is seriously lacking in vision and attitude. It has some nice properties like portable deployment and that's basically it. The rest is just one to one copy from .NET Framework, plus a bit of quick and dirty additions here and there without a further thought. Please note how the latter statement signifies the endangered future state of the platform.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    "vision and attitude" is 100x more vague than platform. Care to actually explain what you think it should be then? .NET Core is cross-platform. That is a massive change that you seem to just ignore.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 8y ago
  Hopefully Core 3 has better serial port support. I've run into all kinds of edge cases for serial ports where things work great on the .Net framework but are flakey or non functional on Core 2. It's my only major complaint about .Net Core.
  - caseymarquis 8y ago
    I've had better luck using OS api calls for serial ports. It's not portable, but it's the only way to understand the behaviour of the underlying driver, which can vary greatly with different hardware. It's very hard to get a vendor to fix their driver and firmware when you can't tell them which API calls they're making a mistake in.
alkonaut 8y ago
That's probably what Core3+ will be. They will let the old framework (which was initially "COM+" remember, a windows only java replacement) just stay around for compatibility. With desktop (WinForms etc) added to Core3 I don't see what project you'd choose the framework for.
- garganzol 8y ago
  Hm... Making a circle to reach the starting point. I would suggest another approach: let .NET Framework incorporate the useful features of .NET Core, and then eliminate .NET Core altogether as an experimental and dead-end branch. Thus stopping the segmentation and saving the technology for the greater benefit of customers. Somewhat controversial, but much saner approach product-wise. Having said that, I don't think Microsoft has the balls to pull the compatibility tricks like this anymore.
  - EarthMephit 8y ago
    You could make the same argument about Visual Basic 6 vs VB.NET Why was VB.Net & .Net needed at all? Why didn't Microsoft just continue development on Visual Basic 7 & incorporate some of the VB.Net features into it? Personally I'd still prefer to be on .NET Core than on some hypothetical Visual Basic version 16, with a ton of compromises made for some slowly changing Frankenstein language of various backward compatibility hacks built in

Quarrelsome 8y ago

I remember a confused developer looking at a brochure that said: "when to choose WinForm and when to choose WPF". His question was: > why do I have to choose?

manigandham 8y ago

"platform" is vague and doesn't describe much on its own. .NET is vast, and the runtimes are what actually run the code packages on various devices. .NET Framework has been the original Windows implementation and now we have a fast, lightweight and modern cross-platform implementation with .NET Core. It makes sense to consolidate on a single runtime that now works well on Windows and is at 99% parity with legacy features.

garganzol 8y ago
.NET Core is not on par. It is seriously lacking in vision and attitude. It has some nice properties like portable deployment and that's basically it. The rest is just one to one copy from .NET Framework, plus a bit of quick and dirty additions here and there without a further thought. Please note how the latter statement signifies the endangered future state of the platform.
- manigandham 8y ago
  "vision and attitude" is 100x more vague than platform. Care to actually explain what you think it should be then? .NET Core is cross-platform. That is a massive change that you seem to just ignore.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Mountain_Skies 8y ago
Hopefully Core 3 has better serial port support. I've run into all kinds of edge cases for serial ports where things work great on the .Net framework but are flakey or non functional on Core 2. It's my only major complaint about .Net Core.
- caseymarquis 8y ago
  I've had better luck using OS api calls for serial ports. It's not portable, but it's the only way to understand the behaviour of the underlying driver, which can vary greatly with different hardware. It's very hard to get a vendor to fix their driver and firmware when you can't tell them which API calls they're making a mistake in.

alkonaut 8y ago

That's probably what Core3+ will be. They will let the old framework (which was initially "COM+" remember, a windows only java replacement) just stay around for compatibility. With desktop (WinForms etc) added to Core3 I don't see what project you'd choose the framework for.

garganzol 8y ago
Hm... Making a circle to reach the starting point. I would suggest another approach: let .NET Framework incorporate the useful features of .NET Core, and then eliminate .NET Core altogether as an experimental and dead-end branch. Thus stopping the segmentation and saving the technology for the greater benefit of customers. Somewhat controversial, but much saner approach product-wise. Having said that, I don't think Microsoft has the balls to pull the compatibility tricks like this anymore.
- EarthMephit 8y ago
  You could make the same argument about Visual Basic 6 vs VB.NET Why was VB.Net & .Net needed at all? Why didn't Microsoft just continue development on Visual Basic 7 & incorporate some of the VB.Net features into it? Personally I'd still prefer to be on .NET Core than on some hypothetical Visual Basic version 16, with a ton of compromises made for some slowly changing Frankenstein language of various backward compatibility hacks built in