4 ms·

Not really. .NET Framework is analogous to the JVM. Micro-frameworks that don’t pack the kitchen sink like nodejs became popular, so Microsoft made .NET Core

Not really. .NET Framework is analogous to the JVM. Micro-frameworks that don’t pack the kitchen sink like nodejs became popular, so Microsoft made .NET Core to be philosophically similar to that. Because people such as yourself got confused by this, they eventually stopped pushing Framework and renamed .NET Core to .NET. Microsoft has never been popular with the valley crowd, so everything they have ever done is pooped on constantly by people on here. You should check out some of the posts on here when VS Code came out. A lot of people were amazed that Microsoft had built something decent “out of nowhere” like those people hadn’t just been living in a bubble their whole career.

KronisLV 4y ago
> .NET Framework is analogous to the JVM. Wouldn't CLR be closer to JVM? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/clr https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/clr And then... I don't know, .NET Framework to JDK, or something like that? I like the whole thing (since .NET now runs on Linux well enough, C# feels okay as a language and has good tooling, like Visual Studio or JetBrains Rider) but there's definitely some naming and branding confusion sometimes going on, including in my own head.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> .NET Framework is analogous to the JVM. No, its the library, not the runtime. > Micro-frameworks that don’t pack the kitchen sink like nodejs became popular, so Microsoft made .NET Core to be philosophically similar to that. .NET Core was still a very batteries-included library, it just dumped bits tied to Windows and made some other backward-compatibility sacrifices to get something cross platform and open sourcable. > Because people such as yourself got confused by this, they eventually stopped pushing Framework and renamed .NET Core to .NET. IIRC, they announced the long term plan to move all functionality that would be retained into Core and converge on a single implementation fairly early on, but to move forward in parallel until then .NET Standard versions were created to identify compatibility across Core and Framework during this period.) Dropping Framework and making Core just unqualified . NET (and eliminating the need for Standard) was just the completion of that strategy.

KronisLV 4y ago

> .NET Framework is analogous to the JVM. Wouldn't CLR be closer to JVM? https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/clr https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/clr And then... I don't know, .NET Framework to JDK, or something like that? I like the whole thing (since .NET now runs on Linux well enough, C# feels okay as a language and has good tooling, like Visual Studio or JetBrains Rider) but there's definitely some naming and branding confusion sometimes going on, including in my own head.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> .NET Framework is analogous to the JVM. No, its the library, not the runtime. > Micro-frameworks that don’t pack the kitchen sink like nodejs became popular, so Microsoft made .NET Core to be philosophically similar to that. .NET Core was still a very batteries-included library, it just dumped bits tied to Windows and made some other backward-compatibility sacrifices to get something cross platform and open sourcable. > Because people such as yourself got confused by this, they eventually stopped pushing Framework and renamed .NET Core to .NET. IIRC, they announced the long term plan to move all functionality that would be retained into Core and converge on a single implementation fairly early on, but to move forward in parallel until then .NET Standard versions were created to identify compatibility across Core and Framework during this period.) Dropping Framework and making Core just unqualified . NET (and eliminating the need for Standard) was just the completion of that strategy.