It’s a tired thing to say, but the “.NET” naming is so confusing on what’s what.
Which is sad because there’s so much to like about .NET
Which is sad because there’s so much to like about .NET
2. .NET "Framework" ... I tell myself "F is for Former." This is the older, Windows specific version.
3. .NET "Standard" ... I tell myself "S is for Specification." This is just the spec which defines what Core and Framework must implement.
Where it still gets a bit murky is:
> “ .NET has many different implementations, including the .NET Framework, Mono, and Unity. Each of these is a separate platform with separate Base Class Libraries (BCLs) and app models. .NET Core is another separate platform.”
Unity looks like it uses its own fork of Mono, or IL2CPP, which is a fancy thing that converts the intermediate language produced by C# into C++ code, which it compiles. [2][3][4]
[1]: https://www.mono-project.com
[2]: https://docs.unity3d.com/2023.2/Documentation/Manual/overvie...
Though reading through it, I am still confused.
.NET Standard solved a problem at the time but as elucidated in the article, it turned out not to be the right solution in the long term. .NET Framework is essentially in maintenance mode and won't be receiving new language features, so new .NET Standard versions don't make much sense given the overhead they introduce. Newer versions of .NET will still be able to build and run libraries targeting .NET Standard but no new .NET Standard versions will be released.
Greenfield projects now typically target what was previously called .NET Core. With the removal of .NET Standard, .NET Core was renamed to .NET to reflect the fact that it's the whole ecosystem as far as any future development is concerned.
I’m skeptical, ChatGPT is not magic, and it was trained on ~15 years’ worth of “there is only one .NET Framework, so we might as well call it .NET” content, ~5 years of “.NET Framework is for serious business, and there’s the cross-platform (mostly-)web .NET Core” content, and 1 year of “.NET 5 is the future of .NET”.
If you're before that, well, good luck.
Except the docs, which still say core all over the place, including the url's. ;-)
And yet, here you are, right on the dot. First comment on any .NET thread.
The Java stuff is easy. From the perspective of a Java developer, most of the things you listed (except for ME, EE and JavaBeans) are just “Java”. And they always have been.
[0] https://michaelscodingspot.com/assemblies-load-in-dotnet/
Because I imagine you end up with what MS did - define a standard that can be used for building common code between new/old, continue support for both, quickly iterate the new while it's still new, be very open about support timelines and document everything pretty thoroughly. You'd just end up with a different set of names for that standard (.NET Standard), and new implementation (.NET Core) that make sense to you, but probably still confuse some people.
I don't think it's perfect, but .NET developers will (or should) all grasp the relationship between .NET Standard/Core/Framework (and now plain ".NET") pretty easily.
Trying to find solutions to ASP.NET Framework problems usually requires discarding a whole bunch of irrelevant ASP.NET Core/.NET ones.
It's the same with Visual Studio/Visual Studio Code.
Whether it spits out the correct answer is still up to chance but the narrowing does seem to work quite well.
I’m not sure what would help in that case other than using something else than “.NET” to identify it.
Griping about a minor inconvenience isn't to say that I don't think it was the correct decision. The new .NET is already far better than Framework, in how the platform is progressing and the development experience.
My experience was this was always a problem even before later versions of ASP.NET. There was so much backwards incompatible changes between ASP.NET 3/4/5 and ASP.NET MVC 3/4/5 and even things that searching for ASP.NET MVC 3/4/5/6 would disagree with ASP.NET 3/4/5 non-MVC recommendations.
If there was a point where googling ASP.NET problems was clean and unpolluted it probably only existed briefly in 1.0.
I'm young enough to have only caught the tail end of Framework in my professional career but I do recall a lot of Razor Pages content showing up when looking for tutorials on MVC.
It's certainly not unique to .NET. Being stuck on an old version of Elasticsearch can turn into a nightmare when trying to find a quick a solution to a query problem.