Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
Java is still in a first major version. Latest release is 1.8.0_xxx
They used up all of their version increments when they went from Windows 8.1 to 10.
Once burned, twice shy. Sorry MS, your time is past.
But, they now embrace open source!
Let us all extend them common courtesy...
We don't want to extinguish the good will they are now showing...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
.NET Framework is really two parts: the "built in libraries" and the CLR (common language runtime). When you install a Framework version, it installs only the CLR version it depends on, and not earlier ones (at least this is true at time of writing).
Where it gets confusing is .NET Framework 3.0 and 3.5 -- both still run on CLR 2.0.
.NET Framework 4.0, 4.5, and 4.5.1 runs on CLR 4 (they actually just call it "4", not "4.0").
Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u...
What's makes this stupidly confusing is the compatibility: If you have .NET 3.5 installed, you can run a 2.0 application. If you have .NET 4.5 installed, you can run a 4.0 application, but you can't run a 3.5 application.
IMHO, if they had just used 2.1 and 2.2 instead of 3.0 and 3.5, this could be much less confusing: .NET 4 apps run on .NET 4, and .NET 2 apps would run on .NET 2. Maybe they're doing this from now on, but the fact that 3.x is really 2.0 has screwed this up. I also don't get why they skip to .5 but that's far less of an issue.
That said, this is the company that thinks 95+1 = 98, Vista+1 = 7, and 8+1 = 10.
Speak before you think
"There is no large scale .NET app I know of"
Ever heard of stackexchange?
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.
Windows changes too much and too often for any real long term use.
Stability is the reason Windows is the #1 platform right now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Some identity providers (the "Log in with Twitter" bullshit) stupidly allowed people to authenticate with accounts that had unverified emails.
1: Create Twitter account with victim's email address.
2: Use "Log in with Twitter" bullshit on site.
3: Be granted access despite the email address associated with the Twitter account never being verified.
Some sites stupidly used the associated email address of the "Log in with Twitter" bullshit to match against existing users.
4: On such a site, you are granted access as the user with the email address you used in step 1.
There are three approaches to fixing this:
3: Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not provide identity services for accounts with unverified emails.
2: Sites should not trust (or even look at) the email address provided by an identity provider.
1: Site should simply NOT use this "Log in with Twitter" bullshit.