3 ms·

I guess it is a matter of perspective and your definition of the word "deprecated". This is the definition I use (from Wikipedia): > In several fields, depreca

I guess it is a matter of perspective and your definition of the word "deprecated". This is the definition I use (from Wikipedia): > In several fields, deprecation is the discouragement of use of some [..] feature Microsoft are currently telling people for new projects only use .Net Framework if you have a specific requirement, otherwise use .Net Core. .Net Core is therefore the default choice. That to me is discouragement which starts to put .Net Framework into the realm of depreciated. Is it deprecated yet? It is not, but it is definitely going in that general direction and you can see it on the distant horizon.

thrower123 8y ago
There is still just a lot of stuff you can't do on Core alone. It's fine, I guess, if you are doing fairly vanilla web server development, although the last time I tried it was not the easiest to run .NET Core on Azure. Probably the story is better there now than it was. Microsoft also has the entire silent iceberg of enterprise development that is going to be slogging along with .Net framework applications for years and years. Billions of lines of code that work as is, and just are not going to be invested in to update them.
- WorldMaker 8y ago
  The .NET Standard 2.0 push moved a vast amount of code to being compatible on .NET Core alone. The "desktop app packs" for .NET Core 3.0 to run WinForms and WPF closes the gap a lot further. (.NET Core on Azure seems pretty easy to me. Even from early beta days of .NET Core, but there are certainly even more Azure tools for it today than then, including some really good .NET Core on Docker support from what I hear.) Yes, enterprises will always be slogging along with ancient solutions so long as "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" aligns with the bottom line. Arguably that seems exactly why .NET Framework might not support .NET Standard 2.1+, because Microsoft doesn't want to accidentally break ancient enterprises if they can avoid it.

thrower123 8y ago

There is still just a lot of stuff you can't do on Core alone. It's fine, I guess, if you are doing fairly vanilla web server development, although the last time I tried it was not the easiest to run .NET Core on Azure. Probably the story is better there now than it was. Microsoft also has the entire silent iceberg of enterprise development that is going to be slogging along with .Net framework applications for years and years. Billions of lines of code that work as is, and just are not going to be invested in to update them.

WorldMaker 8y ago
The .NET Standard 2.0 push moved a vast amount of code to being compatible on .NET Core alone. The "desktop app packs" for .NET Core 3.0 to run WinForms and WPF closes the gap a lot further. (.NET Core on Azure seems pretty easy to me. Even from early beta days of .NET Core, but there are certainly even more Azure tools for it today than then, including some really good .NET Core on Docker support from what I hear.) Yes, enterprises will always be slogging along with ancient solutions so long as "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" aligns with the bottom line. Arguably that seems exactly why .NET Framework might not support .NET Standard 2.1+, because Microsoft doesn't want to accidentally break ancient enterprises if they can avoid it.