3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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