3 ms·
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 ti
by 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 agoThe .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.