3 ms·

> From what we’ve seen and heard so far, .NET 5.0 delivers significant value without much effort to upgrade. From the previous version of .Net Core only. They'

> From what we’ve seen and heard so far, .NET 5.0 delivers significant value without much effort to upgrade. From the previous version of .Net Core only. They've done absolutely nothing to make migrating from MVC 5 any easier, while proclaiming that this somehow merges .Net Framework and .Net Core. Going from MVC 5 to .Net 5.0 MVC is a complete re-write of the web layer from an empty project upon up (even according to their own article[0]). I think the poor messaging on .Net 5.0 bugs me more than the actual work required for the mitigation (which hasn't changed significantly). .Net 5.0 is just .NET Core 4 with a fancy new name. [0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/migration/mvc?view=aspnetcore-5.0 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/migration/mvc?v...

josteink 6y ago
> From the previous version of .Net Core only. Which is already three major versions ahead off classic .net. You’re literally complaining about making upgrades past four major releases not being drop-in compatible. Can you show any other stack which has made such strides to modernise and maintain better compatibility?
- Someone1234 6y ago
  No, I'm literally complaining about the misleading messaging surrounding .Net 5.0 "merging" .Net Framework and .Net Core. My post was very clear on that. Like this quote from the linked article: > .NET 5.0 is the first release in our .NET unification journey. We built .NET 5.0 to enable a much larger group of developers to migrate their .NET Framework code and apps to .NET 5.0.
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    I believe that verbage is mostly referring to options for VB.NET, Winforms, and WPF being available in Core, meaning projects that use those can be ported
  - josteink 6y ago
    > No, I'm literally complaining about the misleading messaging surrounding .Net 5.0 "merging" .Net Framework and .Net Core. Yes, it’s kinda cheating. On the other hand it has been obvious since .Net Core 1.0 that this is where the future is going to be. All announcements before .Net 5 has been clear on the compatibility issues and preparations required, for a couple of years now. Whoever haven’t been planning this migration can thank themselves. Calling what is effectively .Net Core 4.0 for simply “.Net 5.0” is just a way to make it completely obvious, even to those not paying attention, that .Net Framework 4.8 is now superseded, and that the upgrade path is .Net (Core). There’s no other option around the corner. Get with the times. Etc.
CobsterLock 6y ago
We did the migration off ASP.NET a couple years ago. Our site wasnt that big, but we had some major anti-patterns that we decided to address during the migration. (we had multiple CSPROJs for "Businsess Logic" and "Data Access Layer" that didnt do anything of value, end effect was simpler code an ~70% less LOC) There were a few major design changes that we had to embrace in the migration, mainly the middleware and DI. But we still managed to greatly increase performance, reduce our code footprint and get inline with the future Microsoft's vision for a C# webserver. All in it probably took 2 out of the 10 devs a month to complete the migration, while also addressing critical bugs.
- oars 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, why is your site using .NET instead of a modern framework in NodeJs or Python?
  - BjorksEgo 6y ago
    .NET is a modern web framework
alkonaut 6y ago
I understand the naming. They want people to switch to the other track (Core). With this naming it’s like the other teach makes a turn and continues in front of the net4X track. This makes it easier for me to make a case to managers that 4.8->5.0 is an obvious migration to do. Selling 4.8 to core4 would sound scary.
Jordanpomeroy 6y ago
As pointed out earlier, Microsoft has really butchered the proper nouns of their offerings. If you read a dozen blogs posts about the background for the decisions and are able to hold all that information in your head while you need to make a decision, it is possible to attain clarity for a few moments. But it is not fun. On the plus side, going back to versioning .Net should help for the next few years to come.

josteink 6y ago

> From the previous version of .Net Core only. Which is already three major versions ahead off classic .net. You’re literally complaining about making upgrades past four major releases not being drop-in compatible. Can you show any other stack which has made such strides to modernise and maintain better compatibility?

Someone1234 6y ago
No, I'm literally complaining about the misleading messaging surrounding .Net 5.0 "merging" .Net Framework and .Net Core. My post was very clear on that. Like this quote from the linked article: > .NET 5.0 is the first release in our .NET unification journey. We built .NET 5.0 to enable a much larger group of developers to migrate their .NET Framework code and apps to .NET 5.0.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  I believe that verbage is mostly referring to options for VB.NET, Winforms, and WPF being available in Core, meaning projects that use those can be ported
- josteink 6y ago
  > No, I'm literally complaining about the misleading messaging surrounding .Net 5.0 "merging" .Net Framework and .Net Core. Yes, it’s kinda cheating. On the other hand it has been obvious since .Net Core 1.0 that this is where the future is going to be. All announcements before .Net 5 has been clear on the compatibility issues and preparations required, for a couple of years now. Whoever haven’t been planning this migration can thank themselves. Calling what is effectively .Net Core 4.0 for simply “.Net 5.0” is just a way to make it completely obvious, even to those not paying attention, that .Net Framework 4.8 is now superseded, and that the upgrade path is .Net (Core). There’s no other option around the corner. Get with the times. Etc.

CobsterLock 6y ago

We did the migration off ASP.NET a couple years ago. Our site wasnt that big, but we had some major anti-patterns that we decided to address during the migration. (we had multiple CSPROJs for "Businsess Logic" and "Data Access Layer" that didnt do anything of value, end effect was simpler code an ~70% less LOC) There were a few major design changes that we had to embrace in the migration, mainly the middleware and DI. But we still managed to greatly increase performance, reduce our code footprint and get inline with the future Microsoft's vision for a C# webserver. All in it probably took 2 out of the 10 devs a month to complete the migration, while also addressing critical bugs.

oars 6y ago
Out of curiosity, why is your site using .NET instead of a modern framework in NodeJs or Python?
- BjorksEgo 6y ago
  .NET is a modern web framework

alkonaut 6y ago

I understand the naming. They want people to switch to the other track (Core). With this naming it’s like the other teach makes a turn and continues in front of the net4X track. This makes it easier for me to make a case to managers that 4.8->5.0 is an obvious migration to do. Selling 4.8 to core4 would sound scary.

Jordanpomeroy 6y ago

As pointed out earlier, Microsoft has really butchered the proper nouns of their offerings. If you read a dozen blogs posts about the background for the decisions and are able to hold all that information in your head while you need to make a decision, it is possible to attain clarity for a few moments. But it is not fun. On the plus side, going back to versioning .Net should help for the next few years to come.