Comment on dotnet developer

OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Can’t call it Windows 9

  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.

  source

  • bequirtle@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨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

    source

    • UndercoverUlrikHD@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Say whatever you want about Microsoft, but they don’t mess around with backwards compatibility.

      source

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s easy to be backwards compatible when you’re backwards in general.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They properly search for windows n(t) somewhere too ;)

      source
    • intensely_human@lemm.ee ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      it could’ve just been windows nine. or any other word that isn’t a number

      But “nine” is a word that is a number

      source
  • puttputt@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The reason they checked that it started with “Windows 9” was because it worked for “Windows 95” and “Windows 98”

    source
  • activ8r@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • pkill@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They’ll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide

      source

      • dan@upvote.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨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

        source
  • dev_null@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

    source
  • dan@upvote.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    some legacy software checked if the OS name began with “Windows 9” to differentiate between 95 and future versions.

    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.

    source

    • 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨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 ver command. 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…

      source

      • dan@upvote.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring

        oh

        oh no

        There’s code in the JDK that does that??

        I really wish I didn’t see that.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • jadelord@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Strange argument… how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.

    source

    • Wrrzag@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Because it checks if the version starts with the string “Windows 9*”, not wether the number is less than 9.

      source

      • dan@upvote.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.

        source
  • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Eh. I think Microsoft should have let that break so the spaghetti code finally gets fixed

    source
  • ziixe@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨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

    source

    • chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Some programs just didn’t work on NT though. A lot of installers were more OS specific back then.

      source
• XTornado@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  .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).

  source

  • kautau@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    But it’s still the core lol

    github.com/dotnet/core

    source

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • kautau@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨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

        source
• Pfnic@feddit.ch ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • stewie410@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Hey now, why don’t you join my company and use jboss-4.2.2.GA? (kill me)

    source
• activ8r@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because they have dozens of years of experience! They didn’t learn anything from it, but they have it!

  source
• kogasa@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I really don’t think it’s that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.

  source

  • dan@upvote.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • kogasa@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • dan@upvote.au ⁨9⁩ ⁨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 :)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• neutron@thelemmy.club ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I scream silently everytime.

  source

  • coloredgrayscale@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • neutron@thelemmy.club ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Are those USB naming schemes, or edgy usernames from 2000s like xXx_31Gen3x1HardCore_xXx?

      source
  • revlayle@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨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

    source
• NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m developing it for Xbox One X.

  source
• Vladkar@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name “Wii U”, and Microsoft saw that and said “hold my beer”

  source
• labsin@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨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.

  source
• pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  example.net

  source
• turbodrooler@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Razor Blazor

  source