The runtime? You mean .Net, or .Net Core, or
.Net Framework? Oh, you mean a web framework in .Net. Was that Asp.Net or AspNetcore?
Remind me why we let the "Can't call it Windows 9" company design our enterprise language?
Can't call it Windows 9
But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.
For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with "Windows 9" to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
The reason they checked that it started with "Windows 9" was because it worked for "Windows 95" and "Windows 98"
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Software checking the version of Windows gets "6.1" for Windows 7 and "6.2" for Windows 8. The marketing name doesn't matter and is different.
It makes sense why they did it, but their messed up versioning was the cause to begin with. You should always assume Devs will cut corners in inappropriate ways.
They'll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide
And for the same reason they went straight from 2.1 3.x to 5.0 when they renamed .Net Core to just .Net. Versions 3.x and 4.x would have been too easy to confuse (either manually or programmatically) with the old .Net Framework versions that were still in use, especially for Desktop applications.
Dotnet core 4 never existed because they wanted to make it the mainline dotnet... That means framework is retired and everything is now the slimmer multiplatform runtime.
Oh yeah right, I totally forgot 3.x.
some legacy software checked if the OS name began with "Windows 9" to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
This is a myth. Windows doesn't even have an API to give you the marketing name of the OS. Internally, Windows 95 is version 4.0 and Windows 98 is 4.1. The API to get the version returns the major and minor version separately, so to check for Windows 95 you'd check if majorVersion = 4 and minorVersion = 0.
Maybe it's a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the "Windows 9" substring doesn't even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there's no C function that returns the string, but there's a ver command. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)
but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring
oh
oh no
There's code in the JDK that does that??
I really wish I didn't see that.
Yup!! Never look under the hood in software, you'll just be disappointed ☹️
I've been a software developer for 20 years and this comment is too real. Some days I'm amazed that any software even works at all.
Having worked in both food service and software, I encourage you not to visit the kitchen of any restaurants you enjoy either.
Please don't show me how the sausage is made
Strange argument... how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.
Because it checks if the version starts with the string "Windows 9*", not wether the number is less than 9.
This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.
Eh. I think Microsoft should have let that break so the spaghetti code finally gets fixed
I was about to say that most apps should check the NT number but then I remembered that until XP it wasn't common to run a NT system, but then I remembered NT 4 existed basically in the same timeframe as 95 did, and even if the argument went to "it's a 9x application", shouldn't these OSes at least have some sort of build number or different identifier systems? Because as I said NT systems were around, so they would probably need a check for that
Some programs just didn't work on NT though. A lot of installers were more OS specific back then.
Well the repo link yes... create a new repo and migrate everything.... just so the url doesn't say core no more it's quite unnecessary.
And to be honest actual code is currently under https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet
The other links is just for news and docs currently.
I agree, it was mostly a joke. But as the parent commenter explained, “.net is now dot net” is still confusing. They really should just cut ties with the .net name and start fresh. “.net is now MS Interop Framework” or some such. Adopt more sane server versioning moving forward, so searching for information isn’t so wild across all the possible variations and versions of .net, dot net core, dot net framework, asp.net, etc
Because they have dozens of years of experience! They didn't learn anything from it, but they have it!
I have the same issue with Java. Oracle JDK, Open JDK or some other weird distribution? Enteprise Servers or a Framework like Springboot?
It's always easier if you're familiar with the technology.
Hey now, why don't you join my work and use jboss-4.2.2.GA? (kill me)
I really don't think it's that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
Not too weird... It's the "one true .NET version" now. The legacy .NET Framework had a good run but it's not really receiving updates any more.
I have no complaints about just calling it .NET. The distinction between .NET and .NET Framework isn't much of a problem. It's the fact that .NET and .NET Core aren't actually different that's odd. It underwent a name change without really being a different project, meanwhile the Framework -> Core change was actually a new project.
Actually they are different.
.Net core, mono and xamarin used to be completely separate and slightly incompatible runtimes.
They have all been unified under .Net so c# (and other .net languages) will run exactly the same on each.
So the coreclr runtime still exists but you no longer need to target it specifically.
It underwent a name change without really being a different project
The name difference was only to differentiate the legacy .NET Framework with the new .NET Core while both were being developed concurrently. They never intended to keep the "Core" suffix forever. .NET Core had a lot of missing APIs compared to .NET Framework 4.5., and ".NET 1.0" would have been ambiguous. It was to signify that it was a new API that isn't fully compatible yet.
Once .NET Core implemented nearly all the APIs from the legacy .NET Framework, the version numbers were no longer ambiguous (starting from .NET 5.0), and the legacy framework wasn't used as much as it used to be, it made sense to drop the "Core" suffix :)
Yes... But ASP.NET Core kept the branding. Thus "Core" still exists, concurrently with the regular ".NET."
I scream silently everytime.
May I introduce you to Usb 3.x renaming?
3.0, 3.1Gen1, 3.2Gen1, 3.2Gen1x1 are the 5Gbps version.
3.1Gen2, 3.2Gen2, 3.2Gen1x2, 3.2Gen2x1 are the 10Gbps version.
Are those USB naming schemes, or edgy usernames from 2000s like xXx_31Gen3x1HardCore_xXx?
The reasoning it was to not confuse with .net framework 4.x series, and since they went beyond 4.x, it's just .net now. I believe .net core moniker was to explicitly distinguish is from framework versions.
It didn't help the confusion at all, tch. Being a .net guy since 1.0, you just figure it out eventually
example.net
Razor Blazor
Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name "Wii U", and Microsoft saw that and said "hold my beer"
They also couldn't call it ".Net Core 4" so they called it ".Net 5"
Will they keep skipping numbers or start thinking about not naming everything the same.
I’m developing it for Xbox One X.
.Net is both the umbrella term for the entire ecosystem and the new runtime haha
Given that .net was a TLD long before the framework came out, it was a stupid thing to name it. Caused confusion and the inability to Google things right away.
Microsoft names many things stupidly.
Fuck you forever SQLServer. Transact was perfectly googleable.
wasn't it originally idiotically named "SQL/Server"?
Microsoft Azure Blob
(Yes it's a real product they market)
I mean, blob (and object storage in general) has been used as a term for a long time. It isn't particularly new, and MS didn't invent it.
That's sort of the problem. It's easy to Google S3 since it's a distinct (if obnoxiously short) term. Blob is already an overloaded term.
An example of a great name from Microsoft is Excel, it's relatively short but meaningless so if you Google "Excel Sum" you'll get wonderful results... "Blob Get" is going to get you a lot of random stuff.
Edit: the top result for blob get is accurate on Google but you'll also quickly see this result from that site we all hate:
Need help! How do I get the blob fish, basking shark and dwarf whale?
Excel is a brand name, Azure Blob Storage is a descriptive title. It's Azure's blob storage service.
What is Azure Blob Storage's brand name then? I'm confused.
This is why computer science is fucked.
Antilock Braking System
It falls under the Azure brand.
Visual Studio Code
To prevent confusion, I call them "VS Code" and "Visual Studio IDE", because if you say Visual Studio, people assume you mean Visual Studio Code.
And renames a random product every month, following a restructuring it's licensing
At least they don't control the most popular code hosting site along with the most popular code editing software, right? Right?
Yeah Microsoft Entra is the latest one. Azure AD had such huge brand recognition and they just dropped it lol
“xbox”
It's like naming your company x
Or the rectangular gaming console that you sell “xbox”
Like naming a new TLD .zip!
It was pretty smart marketing move. Business people hear 'dot net' and nod wisely. Tech people hear 'dot net' and scrunch their faces. Either way people keep talking about Microsoft Java.
And this is why alcoholism is rampant. Please free me from this insanity.
That aligns with their fucked up naming conventions anyway.
No, you'll need to contact Kim Dotcom. I am merely Kim Dotnet.
Ok, but we all should admit: .net is a terrible name.
And then there's .net classic and .net core. Making up two entirely separate names shouldn't be difficult for marketing executives.
.NET Core doesn't exist any more. It's just .NET now. I think that changed around the release of .NET 5?
The classic version is mostly legacy at this point too.
Just because it's no longer supported doesn't mean there's not some poor intern refactoring spaghetti backend in a basement somewhere using it.
Sure, but you can still find plenty of info on it by searching for .NET Framework or .NET 4.6. All the documentation is still available. Its just not in the spotlight any more.
Hi, it's me, the intern refactoring the spaghetti .NET core backend. I'm not in a basement though. AMA
I am so sorry, man. No one deserves this.
Not an intern, but this week I've unraveled some mysteries in ASP.NET MVC 5 (framework 4.8). Poked around the internals for a while, figured out how they work, and built some anti-spaghetti helpers to unravel a nested heap of intermingled C#, JavaScript, and handlebars that made my IDE puke. I emulated the Framework's design to add a Handlebars templating system that meshes with the MVC model binding, e.g.
and some more shit to implement variable-length collection editors. I just wish I could show all this to someone in 2008 who might actually find it useful.
It is very much still supported and will be for a very long time.
You just shouldn't start any new products using it.
My workplace insists on using dot net classic to recreate a twenty years old VB app that should be able to drink, vote, and drive.
Please send help. SQL queries are a spaghetti mess and all the original devs are probably gone or dead.
Still better than .dot
I totally agree.socialmedia
I can, but due to the extra strains involved the price of this contract will increase.
How many strains does it take to develop using .net? Are we talking high end or ditch weed?
Well .NET is dead now so I guess .COM and .ORG are dead too?
.NET is better than ever wdym
.net isn't dead, that's for sure. It's not the top ecosystem, but it is pretty healthy.
Can you spot the error? Johnson went to the trump organization for a professional field.
It's been my experience that the .NET developer will miss the actual statement and take it as an assault on .NET being the best solution for every use case.
Yes but I'll l need to charge more as they require disclosure specific equipment
This is one of the funniest meme templates because it’s based on one of the funniest moments in media history.
Sorry, what's .Net again?
The runtime? You mean .Net, or .Net Core, or .Net Framework? Oh, you mean a web framework in .Net. Was that Asp.Net or AspNetcore?
Remind me why we let the "Can't call it Windows 9" company design our enterprise language?
But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.
For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with "Windows 9" to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
The reason they checked that it started with "Windows 9" was because it worked for "Windows 95" and "Windows 98"
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Software checking the version of Windows gets "6.1" for Windows 7 and "6.2" for Windows 8. The marketing name doesn't matter and is different.
It makes sense why they did it, but their messed up versioning was the cause to begin with. You should always assume Devs will cut corners in inappropriate ways.
They'll cut corners the more the shittier APIs and ABIs you provide
The API is fine. It returns the internal version number (which is 4.0 for Windows 95), not a string. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa. There's no built-in API that returns "Windows 95" as a string.
And for the same reason they went straight from
2.13.x to 5.0 when they renamed .Net Core to just .Net. Versions3.x and4.x would have been too easy to confuse (either manually or programmatically) with the old .Net Framework versions that were still in use, especially for Desktop applications.Dotnet core 3.x exists
Dotnet core 4 never existed because they wanted to make it the mainline dotnet... That means framework is retired and everything is now the slimmer multiplatform runtime.
Oh yeah right, I totally forgot 3.x.
This is a myth. Windows doesn't even have an API to give you the marketing name of the OS. Internally, Windows 95 is version 4.0 and Windows 98 is 4.1. The API to get the version returns the major and minor version separately, so to check for Windows 95 you'd check if majorVersion = 4 and minorVersion = 0.
Edit: This is the return type from the API: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa
Maybe it's a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the "Windows 9" substring doesn't even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there's no C function that returns the string, but there's a
vercommand. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)This doesn't prove anything, but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring. It's not hard to imagine that code written circa 2000 would not be future proof. https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+%22%5C%22windows+9%5C%22%22&patternType=keyword&sm=0
oh
oh no
There's code in the JDK that does that??
I really wish I didn't see that.
Yup!! Never look under the hood in software, you'll just be disappointed ☹️
I've been a software developer for 20 years and this comment is too real. Some days I'm amazed that any software even works at all.
Having worked in both food service and software, I encourage you not to visit the kitchen of any restaurants you enjoy either.
Please don't show me how the sausage is made
Strange argument... how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.
Because it checks if the version starts with the string "Windows 9*", not wether the number is less than 9.
This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.
Eh. I think Microsoft should have let that break so the spaghetti code finally gets fixed
I was about to say that most apps should check the NT number but then I remembered that until XP it wasn't common to run a NT system, but then I remembered NT 4 existed basically in the same timeframe as 95 did, and even if the argument went to "it's a 9x application", shouldn't these OSes at least have some sort of build number or different identifier systems? Because as I said NT systems were around, so they would probably need a check for that
Some programs just didn't work on NT though. A lot of installers were more OS specific back then.
.net core is not a thing anymore in case somebody it's not aware, now is just .net. (unless you use really old version of course).
But it’s still the core lol
https://github.com/dotnet/core
Well the repo link yes... create a new repo and migrate everything.... just so the url doesn't say core no more it's quite unnecessary.
And to be honest actual code is currently under https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet The other links is just for news and docs currently.
I agree, it was mostly a joke. But as the parent commenter explained, “.net is now dot net” is still confusing. They really should just cut ties with the .net name and start fresh. “.net is now MS Interop Framework” or some such. Adopt more sane server versioning moving forward, so searching for information isn’t so wild across all the possible variations and versions of .net, dot net core, dot net framework, asp.net, etc
Because they have dozens of years of experience! They didn't learn anything from it, but they have it!
I have the same issue with Java. Oracle JDK, Open JDK or some other weird distribution? Enteprise Servers or a Framework like Springboot? It's always easier if you're familiar with the technology.
Hey now, why don't you join my work and use
jboss-4.2.2.GA? (kill me)I really don't think it's that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
Not too weird... It's the "one true .NET version" now. The legacy .NET Framework had a good run but it's not really receiving updates any more.
I have no complaints about just calling it .NET. The distinction between .NET and .NET Framework isn't much of a problem. It's the fact that .NET and .NET Core aren't actually different that's odd. It underwent a name change without really being a different project, meanwhile the Framework -> Core change was actually a new project.
Actually they are different.
.Net core, mono and xamarin used to be completely separate and slightly incompatible runtimes.
They have all been unified under .Net so c# (and other .net languages) will run exactly the same on each.
So the coreclr runtime still exists but you no longer need to target it specifically.
The name difference was only to differentiate the legacy .NET Framework with the new .NET Core while both were being developed concurrently. They never intended to keep the "Core" suffix forever. .NET Core had a lot of missing APIs compared to .NET Framework 4.5., and ".NET 1.0" would have been ambiguous. It was to signify that it was a new API that isn't fully compatible yet.
Once .NET Core implemented nearly all the APIs from the legacy .NET Framework, the version numbers were no longer ambiguous (starting from .NET 5.0), and the legacy framework wasn't used as much as it used to be, it made sense to drop the "Core" suffix :)
Yes... But ASP.NET Core kept the branding. Thus "Core" still exists, concurrently with the regular ".NET."
I scream silently everytime.
May I introduce you to Usb 3.x renaming?
3.0, 3.1Gen1, 3.2Gen1, 3.2Gen1x1 are the 5Gbps version.
3.1Gen2, 3.2Gen2, 3.2Gen1x2, 3.2Gen2x1 are the 10Gbps version.
Are those USB naming schemes, or edgy usernames from 2000s like
xXx_31Gen3x1HardCore_xXx?The reasoning it was to not confuse with .net framework 4.x series, and since they went beyond 4.x, it's just .net now. I believe .net core moniker was to explicitly distinguish is from framework versions.
It didn't help the confusion at all, tch. Being a .net guy since 1.0, you just figure it out eventually
example.net
Razor Blazor
Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name "Wii U", and Microsoft saw that and said "hold my beer"
They also couldn't call it ".Net Core 4" so they called it ".Net 5"
Will they keep skipping numbers or start thinking about not naming everything the same.
I’m developing it for Xbox One X.
.Net is both the umbrella term for the entire ecosystem and the new runtime haha
Microsoft is so bad at naming things!
Given that .net was a TLD long before the framework came out, it was a stupid thing to name it. Caused confusion and the inability to Google things right away.
Microsoft names many things stupidly.
Fuck you forever SQLServer. Transact was perfectly googleable.
wasn't it originally idiotically named "SQL/Server"?
Microsoft Azure Blob
(Yes it's a real product they market)
I mean, blob (and object storage in general) has been used as a term for a long time. It isn't particularly new, and MS didn't invent it.
That's sort of the problem. It's easy to Google S3 since it's a distinct (if obnoxiously short) term. Blob is already an overloaded term.
An example of a great name from Microsoft is Excel, it's relatively short but meaningless so if you Google "Excel Sum" you'll get wonderful results... "Blob Get" is going to get you a lot of random stuff.
Edit: the top result for blob get is accurate on Google but you'll also quickly see this result from that site we all hate:
Excel is a brand name, Azure Blob Storage is a descriptive title. It's Azure's blob storage service.
What is Azure Blob Storage's brand name then? I'm confused.
This is why computer science is fucked.
Antilock Braking System
It falls under the Azure brand.
Visual Studio
CodeTo prevent confusion, I call them "VS Code" and "Visual Studio IDE", because if you say Visual Studio, people assume you mean Visual Studio Code.
And renames a random product every month, following a restructuring it's licensing
At least they don't control the most popular code hosting site along with the most popular code editing software, right? Right?
Yeah Microsoft Entra is the latest one. Azure AD had such huge brand recognition and they just dropped it lol
“xbox”
It's like naming your company x
Or the rectangular gaming console that you sell “xbox”
Like naming a new TLD .zip!
It was pretty smart marketing move. Business people hear 'dot net' and nod wisely. Tech people hear 'dot net' and scrunch their faces. Either way people keep talking about Microsoft Java.
And this is why alcoholism is rampant. Please free me from this insanity.
That aligns with their fucked up naming conventions anyway.
No, you'll need to contact Kim Dotcom. I am merely Kim Dotnet.
Ok, but we all should admit: .net is a terrible name.
And then there's .net classic and .net core. Making up two entirely separate names shouldn't be difficult for marketing executives.
.NET Core doesn't exist any more. It's just .NET now. I think that changed around the release of .NET 5?
The classic version is mostly legacy at this point too.
Just because it's no longer supported doesn't mean there's not some poor intern refactoring spaghetti backend in a basement somewhere using it.
Sure, but you can still find plenty of info on it by searching for .NET Framework or .NET 4.6. All the documentation is still available. Its just not in the spotlight any more.
Hi, it's me, the intern refactoring the spaghetti .NET core backend. I'm not in a basement though. AMA
I am so sorry, man. No one deserves this.
Not an intern, but this week I've unraveled some mysteries in ASP.NET MVC 5 (framework 4.8). Poked around the internals for a while, figured out how they work, and built some anti-spaghetti helpers to unravel a nested heap of intermingled C#, JavaScript, and handlebars that made my IDE puke. I emulated the Framework's design to add a Handlebars templating system that meshes with the MVC model binding, e.g.
and some more shit to implement variable-length collection editors. I just wish I could show all this to someone in 2008 who might actually find it useful.
It is very much still supported and will be for a very long time.
You just shouldn't start any new products using it.
My workplace insists on using dot net classic to recreate a twenty years old VB app that should be able to drink, vote, and drive.
Please send help. SQL queries are a spaghetti mess and all the original devs are probably gone or dead.
Still better than .dot
I totally agree.socialmedia
I can, but due to the extra strains involved the price of this contract will increase.
How many strains does it take to develop using .net? Are we talking high end or ditch weed?
I can but we’ll need to re negotiate my salary.
But we’re an EDU!!!!
Well .NET is dead now so I guess .COM and .ORG are dead too?
.NET is better than ever wdym
.net isn't dead, that's for sure. It's not the top ecosystem, but it is pretty healthy.
Can you spot the error? Johnson went to the trump organization for a professional field.
It's been my experience that the .NET developer will miss the actual statement and take it as an assault on .NET being the best solution for every use case.
Yes but I'll l need to charge more as they require disclosure specific equipment
This is one of the funniest meme templates because it’s based on one of the funniest moments in media history.
That's hilarious!