4 ms·

> ASP.NET Core 2.1 was released in 2018 and will be supported until late 2021. Which is way too unstable, especially for the kind of corporate environment c# h

by flukus 6y ago

> ASP.NET Core 2.1 was released in 2018 and will be supported until late 2021. Which is way too unstable, especially for the kind of corporate environment c# has typically been used in. Getting those places to upgrade to stable supported versions of the framework has always been a battle even when backwards compatibility was great, if they have to deal with breaking changes every few years they will never upgrade. This is why so many companies stick with their ancient COBOL systems, most modern alternatives don't offer the stability they need.

rumanator 6y ago
> Which is way too unstable, ASP.NET Core 2.1 is the LTS release of ASP.NET Core 2, which was released in 2017. I fail to see how a first class framework with a LTS that was released years ago can be described with a straight face as "way too unstable". > Getting those places to upgrade to stable supported versions of the framework has always been a battle ASP.NET Core 2 is stable since at least 2 or 3 years ago, depending on how you decide to count. > This is why so many companies stick with their ancient COBOL systems, most modern alternatives don't offer the stability they need. This assertion is simply wrong at so many levels. Don't confuse "why waste money maintaining working software" linesof reasoning as a sign of respect for stability. More importantly, it's disingenuous to even think of the technical debt that keeps cobol on the map as relevant to the world of web services.
- flukus 6y ago
  > I fail to see how a first class framework with a LTS that was released years ago can be described with a straight face as "way too unstable". I fail to see how you can call 2 years of support an LTS with a straight face, it's taking the piss out of the term. The LTS of the OS I'm likely to run it on is supported for 8 years. 2 years isn't even enough time to finish many projects on the same LTS it started on. At work we've got 30 year old c/c++ code bases that still run, they'll probably run for another 20 at least, we've got 20 year old python code that still runs (for now) and we've got 20 year old c# projects that still run. That last one will never get rewritten in .net core, in part because they've pissed away the stability the framework had. It would be crazy to use tools with 2 years of support for any of those projects. > Don't confuse "why waste money maintaining working software" linesof reasoning as a sign of respect for stability. Why should they waste money maintaining working software when there are stable options available? What does upgrading to asp.net core get them? Why should tens of thousands of companies waste money modifying working software just because someone on the core team thought the existing API was inelegant or too hard to maintain compatibility?

by flukus 6y ago

rumanator 6y ago

> Which is way too unstable, ASP.NET Core 2.1 is the LTS release of ASP.NET Core 2, which was released in 2017. I fail to see how a first class framework with a LTS that was released years ago can be described with a straight face as "way too unstable". > Getting those places to upgrade to stable supported versions of the framework has always been a battle ASP.NET Core 2 is stable since at least 2 or 3 years ago, depending on how you decide to count. > This is why so many companies stick with their ancient COBOL systems, most modern alternatives don't offer the stability they need. This assertion is simply wrong at so many levels. Don't confuse "why waste money maintaining working software" linesof reasoning as a sign of respect for stability. More importantly, it's disingenuous to even think of the technical debt that keeps cobol on the map as relevant to the world of web services.

flukus 6y ago
> I fail to see how a first class framework with a LTS that was released years ago can be described with a straight face as "way too unstable". I fail to see how you can call 2 years of support an LTS with a straight face, it's taking the piss out of the term. The LTS of the OS I'm likely to run it on is supported for 8 years. 2 years isn't even enough time to finish many projects on the same LTS it started on. At work we've got 30 year old c/c++ code bases that still run, they'll probably run for another 20 at least, we've got 20 year old python code that still runs (for now) and we've got 20 year old c# projects that still run. That last one will never get rewritten in .net core, in part because they've pissed away the stability the framework had. It would be crazy to use tools with 2 years of support for any of those projects. > Don't confuse "why waste money maintaining working software" linesof reasoning as a sign of respect for stability. Why should they waste money maintaining working software when there are stable options available? What does upgrading to asp.net core get them? Why should tens of thousands of companies waste money modifying working software just because someone on the core team thought the existing API was inelegant or too hard to maintain compatibility?