.net core is not a thing anymore in case somebody it’s not aware, now is just .net. (unless you use really old version of course).
Comment on dotnet developer
OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org 4 months ago
Sorry, what’s .Net again?
The runtime? You mean .Net, or .Net Core, or .Net Framework? Oh, you mean a web framework in .Net. Was that Asp.Net or AspNetcore?
Remind me why we let the “Can’t call it Windows 9” company design our enterprise language?
XTornado@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
kautau@lemmy.world 4 months ago
But it’s still the core lol
XTornado@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
Well the repo link yes… create a new repo and migrate everything… just so the url doesn’t say core nay more it’s quite unnecessary.
kautau@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I agree, it was mostly a joke. But as the parent commenter explained, “.net is now dot net” is still confusing. They really should just cut ties with the .net name and start fresh. “.net is now MS Interop Framework” or some such. Adopt more sane server versioning moving forward, so searching for information isn’t so wild across all the possible variations and versions of .net, dot net core, dot net framework, asp.net, etc
Pfnic@feddit.ch 4 months ago
I have the same issue with Java. Oracle JDK, Open JDK or some other weird distribution? Enteprise Servers or a Framework like Springboot? It’s always easier if you’re familiar with the technology.
stewie410@programming.dev 4 months ago
Hey now, why don’t you join my company and use
jboss-4.2.2.GA? (kill me)
activ8r@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Because they have dozens of years of experience! They didn’t learn anything from it, but they have it!
kogasa@programming.dev 4 months ago
I really don’t think it’s that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
dan@upvote.au 4 months ago
Not too weird… It’s the “one true .NET version” now. The legacy .NET Framework had a good run but it’s not really receiving updates any more.
kogasa@programming.dev 4 months ago
I have no complaints about just calling it .NET. The distinction between .NET and .NET Framework isn’t much of a problem. It’s the fact that .NET and .NET Core aren’t actually different that’s odd. It underwent a name change without really being a different project, meanwhile the Framework -> Core change was actually a new project.
dan@upvote.au 4 months ago
It underwent a name change without really being a different project
The name difference was only to differentiate the legacy .NET Framework with the new .NET Core while both were being developed concurrently. They never intended to keep the “Core” suffix forever. .NET Core had a lot of missing APIs compared to .NET Framework 4.5., and “.NET 1.0” would have been ambiguous
Once .NET Core implemented nearly all the APIs from the legacy .NET Framework, the version numbers were no longer ambiguous (starting from .NET 5.0), and the legacy framework wasn’t used as much as it used to be, it made sense to drop the “Core” suffix :)
neutron@thelemmy.club 4 months ago
I scream silently everytime.
coloredgrayscale@programming.dev 4 months ago
May I introduce you to Usb 3.x renaming?
3.0, 3.1Gen1, 3.2Gen1, 3.2Gen1x1 are the 5Gbps version.
3.1Gen2, 3.2Gen2, 3.2Gen1x2, 3.2Gen2x1 are the 10Gbps version.
neutron@thelemmy.club 4 months ago
Are those USB naming schemes, or edgy usernames from 2000s like
xXx_31Gen3x1HardCore_xXx?
revlayle@lemm.ee 4 months ago
The reasoning it was to not confuse with .net framework 4.x series, and since they went beyond 4.x, it’s just .net now. I believe .net core moniker was to explicitly distinguish is from framework versions.
It didn’t help the confusion at all, tch. Being a .net guy since 1.0, you just figure it out eventually
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 4 months ago
I’m developing it for Xbox One X.
Vladkar@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name “Wii U”, and Microsoft saw that and said “hold my beer”
labsin@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
They also couldn’t call it “.Net Core 4” so they called it “.Net 5”
Will they keep skipping numbers or start thinking about not naming everything the same.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
example.net
turbodrooler@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Razor Blazor
0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.
For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with “Windows 9” to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
bequirtle@lemmy.world 4 months ago
let’s face it, the 10 was chosen for marketing, even if there’s a technical reason it can’t be “windows 9”
it could’ve just been windows nine. or any other word that isn’t a number
UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev 4 months ago
Say whatever you want about Microsoft, but they don’t mess around with backwards compatibility.
riodoro1@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s easy to be backwards compatible when you’re backwards in general.
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
They properly search for windows n(t) somewhere too ;)
intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 months ago
But “nine” is a word that is a number
puttputt@beehaw.org 4 months ago
The reason they checked that it started with “Windows 9” was because it worked for “Windows 95” and “Windows 98”
activ8r@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
It makes sense why they did it, but their messed up versioning was the cause to begin with. You should always assume Devs will cut corners in inappropriate ways.
pkill@programming.dev 4 months ago
They’ll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide
dan@upvote.au 4 months ago
The API is fine. It returns the internal version number (which is 4.0 for Windows 95), not a string. learn.microsoft.com/…/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa
dev_null@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Sodtware checking the version of Windows gets “6.1” for Windows 7 and “6.2” for Windows 8. The marketing name doesn’t matter and is different.
dan@upvote.au 4 months ago
This is a myth. Windows doesn’t even have an API to give you the marketing name of the OS. Internally, Windows 95 is version 4.0 and Windows 98 is 4.1. The API to get the version returns the major and minor version separately, so to check for Windows 95 you’d check if majorVersion = 4 and minorVersion = 0.
0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Maybe it’s a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the “Windows 9” substring doesn’t even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there’s no C function that returns the string, but there’s a
vercommand. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)This doesn’t prove anything, but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring. It’s not hard to imagine that code written circa 2000 would not be future proof. sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+"\"window…
dan@upvote.au 4 months ago
oh
oh no
There’s code in the JDK that does that??
I really wish I didn’t see that.
jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
Strange argument… how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.
Wrrzag@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
Because it checks if the version starts with the string “Windows 9*”, not wether the number is less than 9.
dan@upvote.au 4 months ago
This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Eh. I think Microsoft should have let that break so the spaghetti code finally gets fixed
ziixe@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
I was about to say that most apps should check the NT number but then I remembered that until XP it wasn’t common to run a NT system, but then I remembered NT 4 existed basically in the same timeframe as 95 did, and even if the argument went to “it’s a 9x application”, shouldn’t these OSes at least have some sort of build number or different identifier systems? Because as I said NT systems were around, so they would probably need a check for that
chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Some programs just didn’t work on NT though. A lot of installers were more OS specific back then.