I've been on .net since 1.1 and .net Core since 1.0 and this statement makes me so confused.
Core lives _inside_ of .net 6? Is there a non-core ASP.NET that also lives inside that framework?
I thought .net 5 was where the legacy 4.x branch and core 3.1 was married in holy matrimony, minus the worst of the legacy garbage.
Yep!
> I thought .net 5 was where the legacy 4.x branch and core 3.1 was married in holy matrimony, minus the worst of the legacy garbage.
.NET 5 was the next evolution of .NET Core. There was no great merging of legacy .NET Framework into the .NET Core branch or something like that. It saw a bunch of foundational stuff land in so that .NET could support modern client apps from Xamarin and further support the modern versions of WinForms and WPF.
If that sounds confusing, it kind of is. But it's a clear branding effort - .NET is not a choice between the "slim .NET Core" and the "big .NET Framework. It is either .NET or the legacy stuff (still called The .NET Framework).
There was a brief period of time after I recognized that .NET really works on all platforms without proprietary stuff and before the `dotnet watch` desaster in which I was at least curious about .NET. But even then I never fully figured out how .NET, .NET Core, ASP.NET, .NET Framework, .NET MAUI and the kitchen sink relate to each other.
If the purpose of branding is to make something recognizable, Microsoft consistently fails across the board with me.
"Nobody can name things like we can't!" (followed by cry-sobbing)
The more serious response to this is:
For better or for worse, The .NET Framework (which is now squarely legacy tech) has stuck around and been reliable. People have had their trust in it validated. For two decades now, if you're a CTO at some big enterprise, you know that .NET Framework will get the job done for much of your development needs. From a Microsoft branding perspective, this is amazing. But it's got all kinds of problems can't be fixed unless you break everyone. Uh-oh!
This is the biggest reason why branding and naming has been so complicated pver the years. And it's even come with little sub-problems, like the fact that the version number for one "flavor" of .NET would match up with the version number for another "flavor" of .NET and so now you're screwed no matter which decision you pick.
A cleaner approach would be to throw it all away and do a complete rebrand (we had a little proposal to call it "Concert" where C# and F# could be played in harmony with each other, how cute) but with that you throw away the brand of one of the most successful pieces of technology ever produced by the company. Not exactly a winning proposal.
The other factor here is that with .NET there is so much software involved. It's three entire programming languages, a runtime, a huge standard library, a web framework, a database access and management framework, a machine learning framework, several Windows app frameworks, a mobile framework, IDE tooling, command-line tooling, and a bunch of other stuff too. .NET is far larger than many other competing stacks in terms of what a single vendor produces. Since Microsoft produces so much software for .NET and aligns their releases, they also message each one, and with that there's a big sea of stuff to keep track of.
I don't know if I have an answer for how to handle the complexity of it all. A lot of folks I know in the F# community only keep track the F# language and IDE tooling updates, then dive into specific stuff only when they care about it (e.g., doing web programming? check out the ASP.NET release notes). But that may not be an option if you're a decision-maker at a company.
Agreed.
> I never fully figured out how .NET, .NET Core, ASP.NET, .NET Framework, .NET MAUI and the kitchen sink relate to each other.
You're not the only one who is massively confused about everything that is labelled .NET or Core.
If anyone else is struggling, I recommend this (I wrote it):
ASP.NET Is the web framework that comes with .NET
.NET MAUI is the application user interface framework that now comes with .NET (Since .NET 6)
.NET is the overarching term for everything .NET.
.NET Framework refers to every version of .NET 4.8 and before. .NET Framework only ran on Windows (unless you used Xamarin to run it on other frameworks. Xamarin was a third party implementation of the .NET framework, it is now owned by Microsoft as well).
.NET Core is the new version of .NET. In the first 4 (I think) versions it had it's own branding, .NET core 1, 2, 2.1, and 3. .NET Core runs cross platform across the desktop OS's natively. Xamarin was still used for mobile development.
What would have been .NET Core 4 has been rebranded as .NET 5. Xamarin at this time was brought into the fold, allowing full functionality of .NET Core API's across desktop and mobile. I believe this rebranding was done because .NET Core was being considered full feature enough to take over the legacy of .NET.
One thing you didn't mention but I'll touch on as well, is .NET Standard. Lot's of people get confused about .NET Standard. .NET Standard is just the definition of what different frameworks that implement .NET Standard can use. So if you write your code to target .NET Standard you can't use .NET Core specific API's but what you can do is have the same code compiled against .NET Standard referenced in your .NET 4.5 - 4.8 Code, or your Unity Code, or your Xamarin code. It was primarily designed with libraries in mind.
Not quite. ASP.NET is the web framework that comes with .NET Framework. ASP.NET Core is the web framework that comes with .NET Core and .NET.
> .NET Framework refers to every version of .NET 4.8 and before.
It was fine to call .NET Framework 4.8 just ".NET 4.8" in the past, but I would avoid it now, to clearly separate .NET Framework 4.8 from .NET 5.0.
Not quite, MAUI has been delayed until next year.
I believe people would not jump as easily onto that wagon if it would be called "Silverlight Core".
No, the "non-Core" ASP.Net framework is not ported to the .Net Core platform (i.e. .net 5+). Only ASP.Net Core runs on .Net Core.
This is unfortunate, because it means older web sites based on the classic ASP.Net does not have clear migration path to .net 5+.
Only remaining confusing part left in ecosystem is "ASP.NET Core", because even though .NET got rid of Core, latest version ASP.NET didn't
Perfectly clear and reasonable.
There is .Net Core, which was a rewrite of the .Net runtime to make it platform independent.
Then there is ASP.Net Core is which is a rewrite of the ASP.Net web stack. Despite the name, this was not initially dependent on .Net Core platform, it could run on both .Net Framework and .Net Core.
ASP.Net Core is the only web framework running on .Net Core though, the old ASP.Net framework is not ported to .Net Core. So to answer your question, no, there is not a non-core asp.net running on the .Net Core platform.
Then there is EF Core which was a rewrite of Entity Framework. Again, this was not initially dependent on .Net Core, although later versions is.
Basically "Core" just means "new backwards-incompatible rewrite".
The open source multi platform rewrite, originally named core, now named "", is going to be the active platform going forward. There are several core rewrites of the popular modules that will be the ones that are actively developed going forward.
We can either stay on 4.8 forever, or migrate to the "" which is where all the new and exciting things are being developed. MS has promised they will support 4.8 for the foreseeable future, for what it's worth.
Here's a video explainer: https://youtu.be/4olO9UjRiww
At this point I've given up hope at grokking the various names within/peripheral to dotnet.
It requires a PhD to understand versioning at this point.