Introducting .NET 5
-
Introducing .NET 5 | .NET Blog[^]
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
Introducing .NET 5 | .NET Blog[^]
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
"With .NET 5, your code and project files will look and feel the same no matter which type of app you’re building." But don't we already have that?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
"With .NET 5, your code and project files will look and feel the same no matter which type of app you’re building." But don't we already have that?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Or does that mean EVERY app will look exactly the same regardless of underlying function? Glad I'm not QA.
-
Introducing .NET 5 | .NET Blog[^]
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
I might be unnecessarily grumpy but I do wish that they've stick to their naming conventions. So .NET Core is now .NET. But that risk confusion with .NET Framework, surely (which is still alive even if Microsoft seems to wish it wasn't). But I have to admit that "CoreFX will be extended to support static compilation of .NET (ahead-of-time – AOT)" looks promising.
-
I might be unnecessarily grumpy but I do wish that they've stick to their naming conventions. So .NET Core is now .NET. But that risk confusion with .NET Framework, surely (which is still alive even if Microsoft seems to wish it wasn't). But I have to admit that "CoreFX will be extended to support static compilation of .NET (ahead-of-time – AOT)" looks promising.
markrlondon wrote:
So .NET Core is now .NET
It always was.
markrlondon wrote:
But that risk confusion with .NET Framework
.NET has been more than the .net Framework for a long time.
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
-
markrlondon wrote:
So .NET Core is now .NET
It always was.
markrlondon wrote:
But that risk confusion with .NET Framework
.NET has been more than the .net Framework for a long time.
I only have a signature in order to let @DalekDave follow my posts.
Yes, I agree, to both your comments. But neither of them is contrary to what I said; they are orthogonal to what I said. Branding (and too-frequent rebrands) really do matter, really do annoy, and really do confuse. I am hardly the first to observe that Microsoft branding is a mess and has been for some time, especially but not exclusively with everything .NET-related. ".NET" (it's a framework but it's not quite .NET Framework) versus ".NET Core" versus ".NET Standard" (except when it's not really standard) versus ".NET Framework"...
