3 ms·

I agree .NET is fantastic technology. I think a lot of the hesitancy in adopting it is from the historical churn described in the article. It’s normal for langu

by wrs 5y ago

I agree .NET is fantastic technology. I think a lot of the hesitancy in adopting it is from the historical churn described in the article. It’s normal for languages/runtimes to have churn in their features, performance, and library. .NET has that in spades, plus continual churn in its very reason for existence. The corporate and cultural forces behind .NET may be aligned with your situation right now, but five years from now, who knows? There’s not yet historical evidence that it will remain stable.

bennysomething 5y ago
The switch from full fat .nets support life cycle to the current dot net cores totally confusing life cycle is currently pissing me off and the higher ups in my firm. Which should be worry for ms. I want stability , not breaking changes.
- thrower123 5y ago
  Yes, this. We will see how well support for the supposedly LTS DotNet 6 actually is long term... I'm not a great fan of how the whole dotnet open source ecosystem has sped up to monthly and biweekly releases. Official Microsoft packages are some of the worst.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    It's supported for 3 years after release. I think ut ought to be longer but it's really not that confusing: a release every year, and every other release is LTS (3 years support).
    - runevault 5y ago
      My one concern (as someone who is still supporting Framework code at the day job) is if they do major backwards compat breaks again. We still haven't decided our path forward to move our web code that uses various Libraries that were not ported.
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  Yeah agreed, the incredibly long term stability and backward compatibility was a real strength of the .NET framework. But the industry as a whole has moved to fast releases and MS responded to keep up with the industry. This includes faster releases, and shorter support timeframes.
spaetzleesser 5y ago
That’s the problem. They don’t have a steady design approach. They do something here, something there, then abandon the first, then go back to it. Desktop is a complete mess. Core looks quite good but who knows what they will do in a few years?

by wrs 5y ago

bennysomething 5y ago

The switch from full fat .nets support life cycle to the current dot net cores totally confusing life cycle is currently pissing me off and the higher ups in my firm. Which should be worry for ms. I want stability , not breaking changes.

thrower123 5y ago
Yes, this. We will see how well support for the supposedly LTS DotNet 6 actually is long term... I'm not a great fan of how the whole dotnet open source ecosystem has sped up to monthly and biweekly releases. Official Microsoft packages are some of the worst.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  It's supported for 3 years after release. I think ut ought to be longer but it's really not that confusing: a release every year, and every other release is LTS (3 years support).
  - runevault 5y ago
    My one concern (as someone who is still supporting Framework code at the day job) is if they do major backwards compat breaks again. We still haven't decided our path forward to move our web code that uses various Libraries that were not ported.
hackerfromthefu 5y ago
Yeah agreed, the incredibly long term stability and backward compatibility was a real strength of the .NET framework. But the industry as a whole has moved to fast releases and MS responded to keep up with the industry. This includes faster releases, and shorter support timeframes.

spaetzleesser 5y ago

That’s the problem. They don’t have a steady design approach. They do something here, something there, then abandon the first, then go back to it. Desktop is a complete mess. Core looks quite good but who knows what they will do in a few years?