Hacker News Reader

Comment by caleblloyd | Hacker News Reader

This is the ASP.NET Core 2.0 MVC Framework that will run on the .NET Core 2.0 runtime. This is not the .NET Core 2.0 runtime.

The .NET Core 2.0 runtime is still in preview for the next month or so. Microsoft released the library specification for .NET Core 2.0, called .NET Standard 2.0 and published all of the GA 2.0 versions of their libraries, such as this one, on Friday August 11. Library maintainers have the next month or so to publish updates to get ready for the .NET Core 2.0 GA release.

View on HN

Actually everything has been released as of today including .NET Core 2.0 runtime, .NET Standard 2.0 and .NET Core Entity Framework 2.0.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/08/14/announcin...

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/

Yes, thanks for updating! Looks like it was a 3 day difference instead of a month. Now I really need to scramble to get my libraries updated :)

The necessity for clarification in this matter is part of the problem.

There is a specification, an implementation, and then a webapp framework to develop on it, similar to most languages out there.

Python specs/CPython/Django

Ruby specs/JRuby/Ruby on Rails

PHP specs/HHVM/Symfony

Java specs/Java Virtual Machine/Java Server Pages

.Net Standard/.Net Core/ASP.Net Core

.Net standard isn't really the same as Ruby or Python specs, not that it isn't welcome but you can't just brush the complexity under the carpet like that.

Also, you have the version number confusion, for example .Net Core 2.0 vs .Net 2.0, one was released 12 years ago, the other in a month. It's all as clear as mud.

> .Net standard isn't really the same as Ruby or Python specs, not that it isn't welcome but you can't just brush the complexity under the carpet like that.

That's exactly what it is, actually. It has several versions, so does a lot of language like Java or C++. If it has more complexity than that, I would welcome you to give concrete exemple of what it contains that isn't in other language's specs.

> Also, you have the version number confusion, for example .Net Core 2.0 vs .Net 2.0, one was released 12 years ago, the other in a month. It's all as clear as mud.

While I agree it may not be clear on the first look, anyone investing more than 2 minutes in .Net understands the difference and is never confused again.

".Net" (this name alone) is the legacy name of what is now called the ".Net Framework", the original and still current implementation of the plateform aimed to run on windows only; what you refer to ".Net 2.0" is ".Net Framework 2.0", and is now always referenced by that name.

".Net Core" is another implementation, one that is aimed at being portable and running on other OSes too.

The table on .Net Standard page makes this very clear, you can see the revisions of the standard on the X axis, and all the implementation on the Y axis, .Net Framework and .Net Core being two different implementation: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standar...

For reference, here is the very same kind of grid for another language (here C++): http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support

Again, I am not saying the name are very well chosen or super clear to someone who glances at it once every 5 years, but anyone actually interested in .Net needs about 3 minutes to clear that up and never have to ask any question about that again.

Unfortunately, glancing at .NET once every 5 years is what about 90% of the devs around here do (including me). Hence the perennial "WTF is up with the name/version?" sub-thread...

.NET is what I know best, but few on here seem to use it/like it. I'm keen to beef up my dev skills. Is .NET worth sticking with?

I also like it a lot, since the alpha version made available to selected MCPs.

In what concerns enterprise world, Java and .NET are here to stay.

If you have any doubts regarding .NET, just check BUILD 2017 talks and all Microsoft blogs regarding UWP, .NET is used everywhere, even if the lower level layers are a mix of C and C++.

Even the Windows UI blog is using only C# for all cool UI effects being introduced with Fluent Design.

Depends what you want to do. If you wanna work for start ups, or amagoobooksoft(with the exception of Microsoft) it's not a great choice.

If you want a good high paying career outside of Seattle/SV then it's a great choice.

I'm in the UK so smaller pool unfortunately. And salaries certainly aren't as good as the US! Seems to be a fair amount of C# in city of London/finance etc and fair contracting rates there though.

It really depends on the market. I got out of .Net/MS stuff because that kind of work was bottom-of-the-barrel compared to what I could get by re-investing in my Linux/OSS skills.

In some other places .Net has all the best paying jobs.

There doesn't seem to be that much Linux here in the UK but perhaps I'm just not looking in the right places.

> .Net standard isn't really the same as Ruby or Python specs, not that it isn't welcome but you can't just brush the complexity under the carpet like that.

.NET Standard does neither specify a programming language, there is for example the C# specification for that, nor the runtime environment, where there is the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) specification with specifications for the Common Type System (CTS), Virtual Execution System (VES), Common Intermediate Language (CIL), and a few other things like meta data formats. The CLI specification also contains a specification for basic class libraries, among them the Base Class Library (BCL). I am not really sure about the exact way .NET Standard and the class library specifications in the CLI specification interact, but .NET Standard essentially defines sets of APIs that must be available in the class library of a conforming implementations.

I get impression that people who bash this new .Net stuff and naming are really theoretical in their approach.

If you are actually doing anything with .Net there is no way you can confuse .Net 2.0 with .Net Core 2.0.

Agreed 100%, and I would add that the threshold for "doing anything with .Net" to reach that proficiency is spending just a few minutes on it.

heh. good on Satya Nadella. stopped using ms stuff more than a decade ago when we went linux for all production machines. from mouth to desktop he has started making microsoft and the good work they do relevent again. - hadnt realised they'd actually released so much linux compatible stuff.

Throw Visual Studio Code in and you can both develop and deploy/run your entire web app on linux using Microsoft tools now, tools that are actually good and pleasant to use.

Predict that fifteen years ago on slashdot and you would probably be "-42 ridiculous" back then.

What is .Net 2.0?

Or do you mean .Net Framework 2.0?

the stable release of the .Net Framework is not 4.7 the .Net Framework 2.0 release date was 2005-11-07

i guess he was being sarcastic ... maybe

I get the impression that some people have no empathy for new users.

I don't know why it is required.

I mean its basically a Django/Python or Rails/Ruby style relationship.

It could be a bit more explicit on the nuget page.

It says 'Microsoft.AspNetCore' in a large font near the top of the page, seems pretty clear to me?

I guess this was meant to be a gripe about .NET Core vs .NET Standard - but this release isn't about either, it's ASP.NET Core, the web framework. There is no clarification needed in this case.

Actually this is not the ASP.NET Core 2.0 MVC Framework, it is the ASP.NET Core 2.0 framework and MVC is another smaller framework which you can plug into ASP.NET Core 2.0, but don't have to (and many choose not to).

A lot of it already works. If you want to play with 2.0 now, you can download it from here:

https://github.com/dotnet/cli/blob/release/2.0.0/README.md#i...

You missed a part:

> Note: the release/2.0.0 branch of the CLI repo is based on the upcoming v2 of .NET Core and is considered pre-release.

i.e. it's still preview (albeit 2.0.1).

From the NuGet page, it looks like it actually runs on anything that implements .NET Standard 2.0, including .NET Core 2.0 and (hopefully in the future) the full framework.

The desktop framework version 4.6.1 with tooling preview 2 implements .NET standard 2.0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com