Comment on dotnet developer
kogasa@programming.dev 9 months agoI really don’t think it’s that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
Comment on dotnet developer
kogasa@programming.dev 9 months agoI really don’t think it’s that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
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.
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.
dan@upvote.au 9 months ago
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 :)
kogasa@programming.dev 9 months ago
Yes… But ASP.NET Core kept the branding. Thus “Core” still exists, concurrently with the regular “.NET.”