8 ms·

>> ASP.NET Core in .NET 6. I've been on .net since 1.1 and .net Core since 1.0 and this statement makes me so confused. Core lives _inside_ of .net 6? Is ther

• tonicbbleking 5y ago
  Naming it ASP.NET 5 would clash with .NET Framework ASP.NET 5 MVC, hence the ASP.NET Core 5 name.
  • olyjohn 5y ago
    And a bunch of people probably had a bunch of meetings and sat around and thought "Yes, this is what we will name it!" FFS!
  • metaltyphoon 5y ago
    I see all 'Core' names being dropped with the release of .NET 7. So it would be .NET 7, ASP.NET 7 , EF7
    • cptskippy 5y ago
      I look forward to the announcements of Office Core and Windows Core.
      • recursive 5y ago
        https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administration/server-core/what-is-server-core https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/administrati...
        • tonyedgecombe 5y ago
          Reminds me of this: https://www.itprotoday.com/net/windows-net-server-first-look https://www.itprotoday.com/net/windows-net-server-first-look
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    Oblig: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51390971/im-lost-what-happened-to-asp-net-mvc-5/51391202#51391202 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51390971/im-lost-what-ha...
    • kingcharles 5y ago
      Wow, I take it you are the author of that post. That is incredible. You need some sort of presidential medal for that.
  • SigmundA 5y ago
    So no excuse for .Net 6 since there was no ASP MVC 6 right?
    • WorldMaker 5y ago
      There was. ASP.NET MVC 6 and EF6 were the last versions for .NET Framework 4.x. Hopefully with .NET 7 next year and all the versions aligned they will drop the "Core" name for just ASP.NET 7 and EF7.
      • orthoxerox 5y ago
        And someone will finally cross out that Jira (er, Azure DevOps) task on their list. "Harmonize branding and version numbers across all major .Net technology offerings", only took them ten years or so.
      • SigmundA 5y ago
        Asp Mvc 6 was never released, it basically became MVC Core 1.
• GiorgioG 5y ago
  I think "ASP.NET" would imply the legacy web framework, so they had to keep the "ASP.NET Core" name. Not unlike EntityFramework & Entity Framework Core.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• DavidKarlas 5y ago
  .NET is sane now... .NET 5, .NET 6, .NET 7... all cool, no more confusion going forward... .NET Framework(full Windows only Framework) is .NET Framework 4.x, stuck there forever only security patches... Only remaining confusing part left in ecosystem is "ASP.NET Core", because even though .NET got rid of Core, latest version ASP.NET didn't
  • jaywalk 5y ago
    Well, part of the problem with the naming for ASP.NET is that the .NET Framework version (WebForms) was simply called ASP.NET, so they couldn't just drop the "Core" like they did with .NET itself.
    • JasonCannon 5y ago
      ASP.NET isn't only WebForms. It also covers the Razor engine as well as their WebAPI (API only).
    • merb 5y ago
      btw. webforms is dead. thank god.
  • vyrotek 5y ago
    And Entity Framework Core unfortunately because EF6 was already a thing.
    • WorldMaker 5y ago
      Yeah, hopefully as others have pointed out, with .NET 7 next year all the version numbers align so that ASP.NET and EF can drop "Core" again.
      • foepys 5y ago
        Searching the internet for help is going to be a nightmare, though.
• phillipcarter 5y ago
  > Core lives _inside_ of .net 6? Is there a non-core ASP.NET that also lives inside that framework? Yep! > I thought .net 5 was where the legacy 4.x branch and core 3.1 was married in holy matrimony, minus the worst of the legacy garbage. .NET 5 was the next evolution of .NET Core. There was no great merging of legacy .NET Framework into the .NET Core branch or something like that. It saw a bunch of foundational stuff land in so that .NET could support modern client apps from Xamarin and further support the modern versions of WinForms and WPF. If that sounds confusing, it kind of is. But it's a clear branding effort - .NET is not a choice between the "slim .NET Core" and the "big .NET Framework. It is either .NET or the legacy stuff (still called The .NET Framework).
  • dschuessler 5y ago
    Microsoft branding is terrible. My only point of contact with it is Visual Studio Code which is different from Visual Studio which is different from Visual Studio for Mac. There was a brief period of time after I recognized that .NET really works on all platforms without proprietary stuff and before the `dotnet watch` desaster in which I was at least curious about .NET. But even then I never fully figured out how .NET, .NET Core, ASP.NET, .NET Framework, .NET MAUI and the kitchen sink relate to each other. If the purpose of branding is to make something recognizable, Microsoft consistently fails across the board with me.
    • phillipcarter 5y ago
      We used to have a saying on the team when I worked there: "Nobody can name things like we can't!" (followed by cry-sobbing) The more serious response to this is: For better or for worse, The .NET Framework (which is now squarely legacy tech) has stuck around and been reliable. People have had their trust in it validated. For two decades now, if you're a CTO at some big enterprise, you know that .NET Framework will get the job done for much of your development needs. From a Microsoft branding perspective, this is amazing. But it's got all kinds of problems can't be fixed unless you break everyone. Uh-oh! This is the biggest reason why branding and naming has been so complicated pver the years. And it's even come with little sub-problems, like the fact that the version number for one "flavor" of .NET would match up with the version number for another "flavor" of .NET and so now you're screwed no matter which decision you pick. A cleaner approach would be to throw it all away and do a complete rebrand (we had a little proposal to call it "Concert" where C# and F# could be played in harmony with each other, how cute) but with that you throw away the brand of one of the most successful pieces of technology ever produced by the company. Not exactly a winning proposal. The other factor here is that with .NET there is so much software involved. It's three entire programming languages, a runtime, a huge standard library, a web framework, a database access and management framework, a machine learning framework, several Windows app frameworks, a mobile framework, IDE tooling, command-line tooling, and a bunch of other stuff too. .NET is far larger than many other competing stacks in terms of what a single vendor produces. Since Microsoft produces so much software for .NET and aligns their releases, they also message each one, and with that there's a big sea of stuff to keep track of. I don't know if I have an answer for how to handle the complexity of it all. A lot of folks I know in the F# community only keep track the F# language and IDE tooling updates, then dive into specific stuff only when they care about it (e.g., doing web programming? check out the ASP.NET release notes). But that may not be an option if you're a decision-maker at a company.
• cl0ckt0wer 5y ago
  the old "framework" versions are in maintenance mode. That is the OG aps.net and framework. it's currently at 4.8 and will probably stay there forever. This includes the OG versions of things like ASP.NET and Entity Framework. The open source multi platform rewrite, originally named core, now named "", is going to be the active platform going forward. There are several core rewrites of the popular modules that will be the ones that are actively developed going forward. We can either stay on 4.8 forever, or migrate to the "" which is where all the new and exciting things are being developed. MS has promised they will support 4.8 for the foreseeable future, for what it's worth. Here's a video explainer: https://youtu.be/4olO9UjRiww https://youtu.be/4olO9UjRiww
• na85 5y ago
  Microsoft is easily the worst at naming things. At this point I've given up hope at grokking the various names within/peripheral to dotnet.
• beauzero 5y ago
  Looks like .NET Framework has had it's life extended as well. It is scheduled to be installed on Windows 11 and Server 2022 which gives the 10 year native to OS support. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/migration-guide/versions-and-dependencies https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/migration-...
• goto11 5y ago
  The naming really is confusing. "Core" was the keyword for several semi-independent projects. There is .Net Core, which was a rewrite of the .Net runtime to make it platform independent. Then there is ASP.Net Core is which is a rewrite of the ASP.Net web stack. Despite the name, this was not initially dependent on .Net Core platform, it could run on both .Net Framework and .Net Core. ASP.Net Core is the only web framework running on .Net Core though, the old ASP.Net framework is not ported to .Net Core. So to answer your question, no, there is not a non-core asp.net running on the .Net Core platform. Then there is EF Core which was a rewrite of Entity Framework. Again, this was not initially dependent on .Net Core, although later versions is. Basically "Core" just means "new backwards-incompatible rewrite".
• mbesto 5y ago
  Welcome to .NET :) It requires a PhD to understand versioning at this point.
• 0xfeeddeadbeef 5y ago
  Historically — yes, ASP.NET Core 1 and 2 had the ability to live _inside_ both .NET Framework and .NET Core.