Microsoft Introduces .NET Core

New submitter I will be back writes: Microsoft's Immo Landwerth has provided more details on the open source .NET Core. Taking a page from the Mono cookbook, .NET Core was built to be modular with unified Base Class Library (BCL), so you can install only the necessary packages for Core and ship it with applications using NuGet. Thus, NuGet becomes a first-class citizen and the default tool to deliver .NET Core packages.

As a smaller and cross-platform subset of the .NET Framework, it will have its own update schedule, updating multiple times a year, while .NET will be updated once a year. At the release of .NET 4.6, Core will be a clear subset of the .NET Framework. With future iterations it will be ahead of the .NET Framework. "The .NET Core platform is a new .NET stack that is optimized for open source development and agile delivery on NuGet. We're working with the Mono community to make it great on Windows, Linux and Mac, and Microsoft will support it on all three platforms."

Comments

why would I write to that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I write to that, when anything it can do, can also be done by non-Microsoft controlled APIs, that are portable to more than just the three platforms they list?

Once burned, twice shy. Sorry MS, your time is past.

Re:why would I write to that?

[AaronLS]

"There is no large scale .NET app I know of"

Ever heard of stackexchange?

Re:why would I write to that?

[PhrostyMcByte]

Why should I have to use a third party library to get decent date support?

I've questioned that myself while working in .NET. Ever needed to write time zone aware code?

Date libraries, as it turns out, are rather monstrously difficult to make. While .NET did a great job for the common stuff, uncommon things can be painful, error prone, or impossible.

The fullest solution I've found so far is Noda Time, which is actually based on the Joda-Time Java library. It feels out of place with a number of Javaisms still in it, but it provides a much richer functionality and better separation of concerns.

Re:why would I write to that?

[bondsbw]

A point of open source is to remove the ability to "extinguish". Microsoft doesn't want it any more? Who cares what they think, the community will decide if it lives or dies.

Re:why would I write to that?

[Anonymous Coward]

.NET ecosystem is very small if compared to Java. And many projects are just ports of Java stuff, payed by MS because otherwise the ecosystem would be even smaller. And look at performance, .NET is a joke for anything serious: http://www.techempower.com/ben...

Re:why would I write to that?

[lgw]

Useful syntax sugar is the only difference between any two Turing-complete languages.

why would I write to that?

[Anonymous Coward]

The .NET API is among the best, and it's hard to deny that.

Re:Minor revision?

[I will be back]

Java is still in a first major version. Latest release is 1.8.0_xxx

Death knoll for Java

[Urkki]

I have to work with Java after a long while, and it is just... Suffocating. Archaic. Kludgey. Oracle. Ask! toolbar. trWTF.

C#, please come and rescue us! F#, deliver us from evil! MS has a chance to do some real good on the backend/server side landscape here. Let's hope they'll somehow manage to not screw it up!

I don't wish for Java to disappear or fail, mind you, I just wish I don't need to work with it in future...

Re:Haters gonna hate

[ilsaloving]

I don't think stability is the word you mean. Backward compatibility. Microsoft really did bend over backwards to make sure old stuff would still run on newer versions of OS, even when it was to Microsoft's detriment.

Stability, however, is exactly the word I *wouldn't* use for Windows. ;)