4 ms·
Minor nit: from what I understand dot net (core) is not a fork but rather a reimplementation / rewrite as far as I understand > It was forked out of .NET 4.x a
by thanksgiving 2y ago
Minor nit: from what I understand dot net (core) is not a fork but rather a reimplementation / rewrite as far as I understand
> It was forked out of .NET 4.x and dropped support for a lot of things in the first versions.
- giancarlostoro 2y agoCorrect, the bytecode wasn't even 1:1 compatible. They then brought over missing pieces, and consolidated .NET Framework features into .NET Core, thus becoming just .NET to end the dumb naming war, since everyone calls it .NET anyway...
- kgeist 2y agoIt's a fork with a lot of modifications (mostly removing deprecated stuff and making it cross-platform). You can still see a lot of ancient stuff in the sources such as referring to the base Object class as "COM+ object" (.NET was originally envisioned as a successor to COM). >An early name for the .NET platform, back when it was envisioned as a successor to the COM platform (hence, "COM+"). Used in various places in the CLR infrastructure, most prominently as a common prefix for the names of internal configuration settings. Note that this is different from the product that eventually ended up being named COM+. For example, see the top comment in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/vm/object.h https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/src/coreclr/vm/o...