4 ms·
If people are looking at what technologies and companies to invest in, knowing that they may be left high and dry with a "full rewrite"-level of breaking change
by Someone1234 4y ago
If people are looking at what technologies and companies to invest in, knowing that they may be left high and dry with a "full rewrite"-level of breaking changes is a valid and relevant critique. You want to know you'll be supported through difficult transitions, and that isn't unreasonable.
I don't understand why people are coming out of the woodwork to tell everyone that full rewrites are a perfectly normal and expected regular occurrence that you should expect from your tech choice. Python 3 is famous for how much they hurt themselves by ignoring the problem. Many companies never did migrate from 2 to 3, and instead picked tech with better guarantees. I expect the same to occur with .Net Framework.
- int_19h 4y agoThe big difference between the two is that the classic .NET Framework is still supported for as long as the underlying version of Windows is (and to remind, it still ships in Win11). So old .NET apps don't have to be rewritten to continue running securely.
- andix 4y agoDo you have any example what technology gave you a clean upgrade path from 2005 until now, without the need to do major changes? With .NET you can still, use most of your code from 2001, just the UI frameworks (and WCF) are not supported anymore on .NET 5+. They are supported at least until 2031 on .NET 4.8. So you can easily move your business logic to a newer version and leave the UI on an older version. But seriously, who is still happy with a web application built in 2005?
- WorldMaker 4y agoEven many of the desktop UI frameworks are supported on .NET 5+ (on Windows only). Both WinForms and WPF are back in "support" in .NET 5+ (.NET 8 includes [small] updates for both WinForms and WPF). Not every UI component moves forward, but a crazy amount of them are still compatible after decades.