5 ms·
> Supported for three years as the latest long term support (LTS) release. This is the first thing I look for in these announcements. .NET 6 is the successor
by SloopJon 5y ago
> Supported for three years as the latest long term support (LTS) release.
This is the first thing I look for in these announcements. .NET 6 is the successor to .NET Core 3.1.
- ziml77 5y agoI've been waiting for .NET 6 for the past year for the long term support. As much as I wanted to use .NET 5, I figured it would be best to only use LTS releases in production.
- AtNightWeCode 5y agoI never run anything else than LTS in production. The in-between versions have basically been beta quality since .NET 1-preview.
- metaltyphoon 5y agoCrazy how bing.com seem to not care for "beta" software :D
- throwaway_85202 5y agoBing.com developers are "first-party customers", they can raise issues internally, and these issues are prioritized
- Semaphor 5y agoThey literally don’t. They run actual preview versions in production to give the .NET team a chance to test new releases in high-traffic production scenarios. Though IIRC preview is a bit past beta ;)
- metaltyphoon 5y agoRight… So if such a massive site uses it whats the excuse for the next CRUD app?
- joshschreuder 5y agoI don't agree personally. I've written production services in all versions from 2.0 up to 5.0, including the minor point releases and had no issues (especially most recently). I know there have been some quality issues on the EF Core side, but on the Framework side everything has been pretty rock solid for me, with easy upgrades between versions.
- loic-sharma 5y agoDisclaimer: I work on .NET What makes you say that? All versions of .NET - including non-LTS versions - have had an extremely high bar for quality before releasing.
- AtNightWeCode 5y agoI worked with all .NET versions. The most none-code related .NET bugs I had to hunt down in modern time has been in .NET Core 1.0 (clear leader) and .NET Core 2.2. The thing I like about the LTS versions is that they always work in and with any part of the ecosystem. Actually, one of our clients had to downgrade from .NET 5.
- ripley12 5y agoDisagree. .NET 5 and 6 previews have been remarkably solid+stable for me.
- merb 5y agonot the best idea. because between .net 5 and .net 6 not a lot has changed. while 3.1 to 6 is waaaaaaaay more work than just 5 / 6 (which prob is just changing the version) especially on aspnetcore
- pbreit 5y agoThree years doesn't seem very "long".
- sedatk 5y agoTrue, but it requires way less effort to upgrade to a newer .NET.
- WorldMaker 5y agoIndeed, but it seems to be close to the current "industry standard" at this point, for instance: Node LTS is 12-months support plus 24-months "extended security support". (Three years total) Which is not far from say Ubuntu LTS at five years. (Python and Ruby have more confusing security fix policies than LTS/stable designations, but both are relatively close to the 3-5 year mark for security fixes.) Definitely not "long" from the perspective of classic Enterprise development (or Windows "LTS" lengths), but from modern viewpoints it is "long". Interesting how such things shift culturally.
- andrewf 5y agoIf you pay Canonical you get 10 years for Ubuntu LTS, about the same as paying Microsoft for Windows Server/Enterprise.