Comment by JohnBooty | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JohnBooty | Hacker News Reader

I moved away from the .NET world less than three years ago and this announcement might as well be written in Klingon or ancient Greek to me.

Now, keep in mind that I actually thought (and still think?) that .NET and C# make for a very productive development environment. I didn't leave due to antipathy; no axe to grind here.

But...

"netcoreapp2.0"? "netstandard1"? "net4"? Huh? What?

From Scott Hanselman's reply:

   .NET Core is side by side and it’s moving fast. It’s WAY faster 
   than .NET (Full) Framework can move which is good. By building 
   ASP.NET Core 2.0 on top of .NET Core 2.0 (which, remember, is a
   SUPERSET of .NET Standard) that means stuff can be built faster 
   than NetFx or even Netstandard.

.NET Core? .NET Full? .NET Standard? .NETfx?

And .NET Core is a superset of .NET Standard? How does that make sense? "Core" sounds like a stripped-down version of... something? But, apparently it's a superset. Because nothing makes sense any more.

My only point here is: at first glance, this is an utterly bewildering set of choices. I'm sure there's a pretty simple relationship between all these things, but the .NET people probably aren't doing themselves any favors this these naming choices and (what appears to be) fragmentation between .NET development targets.

Remember, these are the people that came up with the System32 folder for 64-bit files, and SysWow64 for 32-bit files.

Okay, just upvoted you. Now i know why the cure was what it was, when i put the .exe in the other ( i thought wrong) folder...

It's properly named, because you say "wow..." when you figure it out.

It's actually an acronym for "Windows On Windows", but I like your take too :)

While I hate to interfere with any Microsoft bashing, the use of system32 is actually because too many 3rd party apps didn't bother calling "GetSystemDirectory()" and just assumed it was system32. And Wow64 is Windows On Windows 64, a subsystem for making non 64 bit apps run on 64 bit Windows. So that one will remain properly named until SysWow128 comes about.

Sure, there is a valid reason (it's not like they got drunk and made this all up). But the result is completely backwards from what everyone would expect it to mean. They might as well have named it FHJAL3481JF because at least it means nothing, instead of the opposite of what everyone expects. Sys32OnWin64 might have been a better choice.

It isn't a valid assumption (nor expectation) that MS would design it so that anyone not skilled in Windows development would understand it. If you want to see a nightmare, look at a *nix file system. If it were a contest, I'm sure most people would give the point to Microsoft on this one.

.NET Core is the rewrite/reimagining of .NET

.NET Standard is a standard that the 3 different implementations of .NET try implement (.NET, .NET Core and Mono). Any implementation of .NET Standard can add in extra functionality, hence superset, it's a bit silly.

.NETFX = .net framework.

their naming is a mess.

>.NET Standard is a standard that the 3 different implementations of .NET try implement (.NET, .NET Core and Mono). Any implementation of .NET Standard can add in extra functionality, hence superset, it's a bit silly.

It's actually pretty smart if it's implemented correctly (Which it's not, there is another article floating around the moment which says that .net standard isn't working correctly because people pick and choose what to implement anyway).

So the .net standard is essentially like "interfaces" in code. It says, if you want to say you are .net standard 1.6 you must implement these things.

When you go to write a library and you want to release it to the masses. You would normally have to go "OK, do I want to write this for .net core or .net framework?". With .net standard you can write it in a way that you know that a call to some method will always be there no matter what platform is actually running the library.

A bit more info here : http://dotnetcoretutorials.com/2017/01/13/net-standard-vs-ne...

I always loved .NET Framework, but I agree, some of the names are confusing and don't make entire sense later on. Like if I want to code ASP .NET Core in SublimeText 3 the plugin mentions ASP .NET vNext, which I'm honestly not sure if that was just code for ASP .NET Core or some abandoned version of .NET (the fact it's not even in your post...) and it's sad. The only one's I know currently are:

* .NET Core - a new spin on .NET Framework for the cloud and such, not always compatible with .NET Framework but sometimes compatible. * .NET Framework (or "Full") - the .NET Framework we've known and loved, what was a few years ago merely known as .NET * .NET Standard - the bridge between the two, made after .NET Core so that they could break backwards compatibility to some extent, or they realized "whoops we gotta make a compatibility layer" or some other reason...

I'm not even sure what .NETfx is, nor what ASP .NET vNext was, and if it was just an alpha, all I know is in Sublime Text I don't have sane / easy options. On Visual Studio Code I can just install the "C#" plugin on the other hand and get going. It's not as good as Visual Studio's IntelliSense though.

One nice thing about .NET Core is the ability to develop from any platform and to deploy to any platform. .NET Framework needed Mono for that, I wonder how much of .NET Core will become Mono Core or something similar (if at all?).

".NETfx" is a common shorthand for .NET Framework. And that was perhaps the worst possible post to use a common shorthand.

So am I right in assuming .NETfx and .NET Full are the same? Or... Yeah I still love .NET not a fan of the weird transition phase, I can't help but think that Core should of been stuck into Alpha for this time frame, but then people would complain it's ready for prime.

Plus, .NET Core is the first developed openly on GitHub as open source, so you get the teething pains of seeing how all the sausage is made. On the one hand this is great to see so much transparency and open source collaboration. On the other hand, for a lot of .NET veterans used to only hearing about .NET updates maybe once every three years at a well rehearsed developer conference, the world of open source transparency is definitely a fire hose of information updates and that makes for a very rough transition.

.NET Core and Asp.net Core are simply the .net frameworks that are cross platform.

.NET standard something your libraries can conform to, which allows it to run on the old .NET framework and the new core frameworks.

Honestly having used python, node and java I don't think its that difficult compared.

It's just .net foreign to most people, so they don't know the terminology.

I'm actively moving away from .NET now. Wait for me.

What are you moving to?

Node

Ditto, we moved away from .net in 2014 to Node and love it.

Not the OP, but Android.

I too am actively moving away from .NET and I'm moving to Elixir. Not expecting to be able to leave my .NET job any time soon but I'm still transitioning for hobby projects.

.NET standard looks like a description of features, but not its implementation. It's the standard to which all other .NET implementations are measured by.

.NET core is the new guy in town that is cross platform. ASP.NET Core is the web framework built on top of .NET core.

.NET Core is called a superset of .NET Standard because it implements everything and more.

Agreed, but is the Javascript ecosystem as an example really simpler to people that are new to it ?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com