3 ms·

.NET's LTS releases are supported for 3 years and STS are supported for 18 months. I wish LTS support was 5 years, it seems like ecosystem has matured enough po

.NET's LTS releases are supported for 3 years and STS are supported for 18 months. I wish LTS support was 5 years, it seems like ecosystem has matured enough post-going-OSS-wild-ride starting with .NET 6 release and is ready for such a support timeframe. Or at least they could have every other LTS be ELTS? Also, I do wonder if RoRs perceived productivity is by inertia? I have a hard time believing you can top the productivity of quick scaffolding for back-end you get circa .NET7-8?

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
you're right, looking closer I got my wires crossed. non-LTS is 2 years, LTS is 3 years https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/support/policy/dotnet-core https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/platform/support/policy/d... imo, short term RoR will beat the pants off asp.net core in terms of developer productivity. mid to long term asp.net core wins hands down in terms of developer productivity. I don't think the RoR productivity story is fake, but I do think it's not worth the long term maintenance costs.
evntdrvn 3y ago
On the flip side, within the last few years, upgrading .NET versions has become typically a very easy exercise. The ASP.NET team tends to churn stuff wayyy more often than I'd like for questionable reasons, which can make keeping more painful than I'd like - but tbh I often just keep using the older ways of doing things in ASP.NET since it's almost always still supported...
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  I do think .net moves faster than it should (faster than it used to for sure) but I assuage that worry with the fact that you can still install .net framework 1 and it'll work.