5 ms·

I've been given an old .NET Framework project, at least with .NET you can target .NET Standard 2.0, and that way additions can be done on top of the modern(ish)

I've been given an old .NET Framework project, at least with .NET you can target .NET Standard 2.0, and that way additions can be done on top of the modern(ish) ecosystem, for progressive rewriting At least MS won't kill .NET Framework until they've fully transitioned Desktop Office, Visual Studio and Sharepoint, so we at least have a couple decades ahead (Much to my chagrin) Sidenote: Whoever is in charge of Microsoft naming schemes deserves to be taken behind the barn and shot, they can't keep getting away with this

smcl 2y ago
Do you think with different naming or branding it would've been any better? I'm not sure it would - I think the big thing is that they've tried to move from a (legacy) Windows-heavy language/runtime to one that is more cross-platform, and that is inevitably going to be tricky no matter what you call it. I think the naming does make sense, it's just been maybe been poorly communicated, because I've seen a few people getting tripped up by it.
- joseda-hg 2y ago
  The projects would be roughly the same, but information about them would be significantly cleaner If I see an article about .NET, depending on the year it might be about 2 different product lines, because the shorthand was made to be the same If I need to google how to X in Visual Studio, more than half of the results will be irrelevant, because they will be about a different product, so on and so on If the naming was good, it wouldn't trip up people (So regularly at least), that's my point Other ones that trip up people, Teams for personal use?, that one regularly bugs out when interacting with business users? Skype vs Skype for Business?
  - smcl 2y ago
    That does introduce some ambiguity, I just don't know how often people google things like that. And if searching "how to authorize HTTP request .NET" (or similar) is a common occurrence, I reckon there's a bigger problem lurking beneath the surface there...
    - joseda-hg 2y ago
      It's worse on less formal communication, but shorthand "We're targeting .NET" might mean "We're targeting .NET (Standard)" (Which works on both Framework and used to be Core / current .NET) "We're targeting .NET (Framework)" (Used to be shortened to .NET) "We're targeting .NET" (Formerly .NET Core) / (6/7/8/9), current recomendation being to call this one just .NET (But not always respected, and not retroactively applied If legacy wasn't a thing, there wouldn't be much trouble, but since many libraries and some functionality does get backported, you might be stuck with documentation doing any of them, maybe even inconsistently
eterm 2y ago
The horrible naming thing is epitomised by the frankenstein that is, "ASP.NET Core 2.3", which is a re-release of "ASP.NET Core 2.1", which is actually a .NET Framework thing. Re-released because ASP.NET Core 2.1 had a better support lifecycle than ASP.NET Core 2.2, and people "upgraded" to 2.2 not realising this. So people got stuck on unsupported 2.2, rather than the supported 2.1. So they re-released 2.1 as 2.3, to give people an "upgrade" path from 2.2 to 2.1. All named after "ASP.NET Core" which, confusingly, is detached from ASP.NET on .NET Core. ( .NET Core which is now just ".NET" , of course. ) Read the whole horror-show here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/servicing-release-advisory-aspnetcore-23/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/servicing-release-advi... I swear .NET has had the best technology focus for the past 5 or so years, but has had absoultely the worse brand and a complete lack of developer relations / brand ambassador type work. They need someone who can turn around and tell them to stop this madness, and focus on getting out that .NET is a fantastic ecosystem that performs damn well, and modern C# a pleasure to write in. But instead we get stuff like "EF Core 9" that targets .NET 8, and all the 9.0.x system libraries, where isn't not clear whether you should be using them if you want to stick to the LTS and target .net 8.

smcl 2y ago

Do you think with different naming or branding it would've been any better? I'm not sure it would - I think the big thing is that they've tried to move from a (legacy) Windows-heavy language/runtime to one that is more cross-platform, and that is inevitably going to be tricky no matter what you call it. I think the naming does make sense, it's just been maybe been poorly communicated, because I've seen a few people getting tripped up by it.

joseda-hg 2y ago
The projects would be roughly the same, but information about them would be significantly cleaner If I see an article about .NET, depending on the year it might be about 2 different product lines, because the shorthand was made to be the same If I need to google how to X in Visual Studio, more than half of the results will be irrelevant, because they will be about a different product, so on and so on If the naming was good, it wouldn't trip up people (So regularly at least), that's my point Other ones that trip up people, Teams for personal use?, that one regularly bugs out when interacting with business users? Skype vs Skype for Business?
- smcl 2y ago
  That does introduce some ambiguity, I just don't know how often people google things like that. And if searching "how to authorize HTTP request .NET" (or similar) is a common occurrence, I reckon there's a bigger problem lurking beneath the surface there...
  - joseda-hg 2y ago
    It's worse on less formal communication, but shorthand "We're targeting .NET" might mean "We're targeting .NET (Standard)" (Which works on both Framework and used to be Core / current .NET) "We're targeting .NET (Framework)" (Used to be shortened to .NET) "We're targeting .NET" (Formerly .NET Core) / (6/7/8/9), current recomendation being to call this one just .NET (But not always respected, and not retroactively applied If legacy wasn't a thing, there wouldn't be much trouble, but since many libraries and some functionality does get backported, you might be stuck with documentation doing any of them, maybe even inconsistently

eterm 2y ago

The horrible naming thing is epitomised by the frankenstein that is, "ASP.NET Core 2.3", which is a re-release of "ASP.NET Core 2.1", which is actually a .NET Framework thing. Re-released because ASP.NET Core 2.1 had a better support lifecycle than ASP.NET Core 2.2, and people "upgraded" to 2.2 not realising this. So people got stuck on unsupported 2.2, rather than the supported 2.1. So they re-released 2.1 as 2.3, to give people an "upgrade" path from 2.2 to 2.1. All named after "ASP.NET Core" which, confusingly, is detached from ASP.NET on .NET Core. ( .NET Core which is now just ".NET" , of course. ) Read the whole horror-show here: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/servicing-release-advisory-aspnetcore-23/ https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/servicing-release-advi... I swear .NET has had the best technology focus for the past 5 or so years, but has had absoultely the worse brand and a complete lack of developer relations / brand ambassador type work. They need someone who can turn around and tell them to stop this madness, and focus on getting out that .NET is a fantastic ecosystem that performs damn well, and modern C# a pleasure to write in. But instead we get stuff like "EF Core 9" that targets .NET 8, and all the 9.0.x system libraries, where isn't not clear whether you should be using them if you want to stick to the LTS and target .net 8.