4 ms·

This is one thing that C# finally fixed. If you go to the downloads: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-core/2.2 https://dotnet.microsoft.com/downloa

This is one thing that C# finally fixed. If you go to the downloads: https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-core/2.2 https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/dotnet-core/2.2 you get "Build apps - SDK" and "Run apps - Runtime". So you know what to download depending on your situation. for years it would just say "SDK" and "Runtime", which to a new user means pretty much nothing. I think Java still uses the confusing style, they should stop it as well.

butteroverflow 7y ago
I don't see how that's any better than JRE + JDK. Runtime environment + development kit, with the ubiquitous J- prefix. I remember terrible confusion in the blog comments back when they first announced .NET Core. It was not helped by the fact, that, for example, you can build ASP.NET Core applications to target either the .NET Core runtime, or the "classic" .NET. You can build libraries to target "classic" .NET, .NET Standard, or .NET Core. I'd say the situation is worse than in Java world. It'll probably resolve itself though once they merge everything into a single framework.
pjmlp 7y ago
Java has stopped doing that with Java 9, with introduction of modules and linker. You are now supposed to bundle an application specific runtime tailored to your application. Which is also the path that .NET is taking forward with .NET Core.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  I don't see how Java modules have anything to do with the UI framework. Swing is still part of JRE and JDK, and JavaX is now a third party framework, but that's as far as I can tell how that concept is related here.
  - pjmlp 7y ago
    Because modules and the linker work together, reducing the needless fat when creating an application specific runtime.
    - sdegutis 7y ago
      Oh I understand. You're talking about stripping down the final Java output to not include more than what's needed, for a better end-user-experience. I was talking about which UI module to include and target from a developer's stand-point. They're both related to modules though, just from different sides of the same coin.

butteroverflow 7y ago

I don't see how that's any better than JRE + JDK. Runtime environment + development kit, with the ubiquitous J- prefix. I remember terrible confusion in the blog comments back when they first announced .NET Core. It was not helped by the fact, that, for example, you can build ASP.NET Core applications to target either the .NET Core runtime, or the "classic" .NET. You can build libraries to target "classic" .NET, .NET Standard, or .NET Core. I'd say the situation is worse than in Java world. It'll probably resolve itself though once they merge everything into a single framework.

pjmlp 7y ago

Java has stopped doing that with Java 9, with introduction of modules and linker. You are now supposed to bundle an application specific runtime tailored to your application. Which is also the path that .NET is taking forward with .NET Core.

sdegutis 7y ago
I don't see how Java modules have anything to do with the UI framework. Swing is still part of JRE and JDK, and JavaX is now a third party framework, but that's as far as I can tell how that concept is related here.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Because modules and the linker work together, reducing the needless fat when creating an application specific runtime.
  - sdegutis 7y ago
    Oh I understand. You're talking about stripping down the final Java output to not include more than what's needed, for a better end-user-experience. I was talking about which UI module to include and target from a developer's stand-point. They're both related to modules though, just from different sides of the same coin.