Hacker News Reader

Comment by RachelF | Hacker News Reader

Nice, but Microsoft restarting the .NET numbering scheme is going to confuse many, even if they added the word "Core" to it.

I guess this is equivalent to ASP.NET 7?

View on HN

If its called asp.net 7 people would think its backward compatible. And since almost everything was rebuild from scratch, WebForms doesn't exists, WCF also, most important namespace System.Web is gone, it wouldn't be fair to version it with 7. MVC API looks the same, but that's about it, everything else underneath is new. MS went long way to "emulate" old MVC and WebAPI, for easier porting of old apps.

I thought major versions aren't usually backwards compatible (.Net 5.0 instead of 4.8)

.NET runtime breaks with general versioning in that every version is backwards compatible; it follows closer to the Windows versioning where every version of Windows is generally backwards compatible with every prior version.

> WebForms doesn't exists, WCF also

It's not compatible with the stuff that I always found a bit backwards. Good. The amount of time I threw out of the window as a junior developer thinking WebForms was difficult because I didn't really understand it well enough yet is horrible. I hate WebForms.

> I hate WebForms

Indeed. Things like UpdatePanels were a nightmare to work with sometimes. MVC was a breath of fresh air.

In theory it is not ASP.NET 7 because Microsoft refuses to say that ASP.NET Core supersedes ASP.NET, even though in practice this is exactly what they are doing. So in theory there could be an actual ASP.NET 7 in the future which would be different to ASP.NET Core, but my guess is that in practice this will never happen.

ASP.NET Core 1.0 was referred to as ASP.NET 5 for months and months before too many complaints about backwards compatibility breaks forced the hand and renamed it.

You do realise that Core is a complete rewrite of .net, which is platform independent? (Edit: Designed from the ground up to be 100% platform independent)

To start Core from 1.0 is (as such) entirely appropriate considering the scope of the project.

I struggle now knowing what to google when I need to solve a problem! I (stupidly, probably) started the current app I'm working on with the RC and I've gotten totally muddled by the different versions. It doesn't help that things changed so rapidly in those early versions that you had to know exactly which version to search for or the info you found would be totally inapplicable.

It's great stuff though, I'm glad I went with it even if it's given me some headaches along the way!

there's quite a few things they hit the reset on and manage a few things with different version numbers that are all currently on very similar versions. I read a post a while back they know its a problem and plan to improve it. But I don't know.... microsoft seems to have trouble with linear versions!

I wish they could come up with some more distinctive naming! Unusual names stick in your head better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com