3 ms·
I think Azure suffers in the same way as MS development tools generally, they are racing to try and make so many new things that their "legendary" backwards com
by lbriner 5y ago
I think Azure suffers in the same way as MS development tools generally, they are racing to try and make so many new things that their "legendary" backwards compatibility feels more like neglect than support. Sure, Webforms still works (which is nice, 1000s of companies have legacy apps) but they still haven't fixed the problem that nuget installs reformats web.config even if it doesn't change it, meaning you have to delete all the redirects, get VS to add them back in and only then do you see the actual changes.
I would see that as a "Major" bug because it is so unecessary and been there so long. MS's attitude? Bit too hard to fix, just use dotnet core instead, like we can all just do that with our legacy production apps!
VS is also pretty cool function-wise but still too many lockups, cache corruption causing strange compiler errors and files left locked after exiting but instead of doubling-down and refactoring the core code to work properly (I think that is a "thing"), instead they kind of start using VSCode instead even though it doesn't have half the functionality of VS but don't make VS become the thing of beauty it is supposed to be.
- codeflo 5y agoThis used to be very different one or two decades ago, when Microsoft's backwards compatibility meant you could migrate your existing code to the new thing with minimal changes. This era is where the "legends" come from. Nowadays, it's exactly as you describe, unfortunately.
- blowski 5y agoAgreed. Now, they'd make "Doors" (which doesn't run anything from Windows) instead of Windows 95, just leaving Windows 3.1 to rot as is. It's more likeways "sideways-incompatibility".