• @OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2005 months ago

    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?

    • Trailblazing Braille Taser
      link
      fedilink
      565 months ago

      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.

            • @Octopus1348@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              75 months ago

              I once heard some YouTuber say Windows uses \ in path names instead of / like everyone else because Microsoft thinks backwards.

              • @dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                As what often happens, using \ for paths is for backwards compatibility.

                Neither CP/M nor MS-DOS 1.0 had folders. When folders were added in MS-DOS 2.0, the syntax had to be backwards compatible. DOS already used forward slashes for command-line options (e.g. DIR /W) so using them for folders would have been ambiguous - does that DIR command have a /W option, or is it viewing the contents of the W directory at the root of the drive? Backslashes weren’t used for anything so they used them for folders.

                This is the same reason why you can’t create files with device names like con, lpt1, and so on. DOS 2.0 has to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 where you could do something like TYPE foo.txt > LPT1 to send a document to a printer. The device names are reserved globally so they can work regardless of what folder you’re in.

            • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              15 months ago

              Well, better to be backwards with backwards compatibility than to just be backwards.

              looks at Apple

        • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          25 months ago

          it could’ve just been windows nine. or any other word that isn’t a number

          But “nine” is a word that is a number

      • @puttputt@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        145 months ago

        The reason they checked that it started with “Windows 9” was because it worked for “Windows 95” and “Windows 98”

      • @dev_null@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        8
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

      • @activ8r@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        75 months ago

        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.

      • @dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

      • @dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

        Edit: This is the return type from the API: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa

        • Trailblazing Braille Taser
          link
          fedilink
          35 months ago

          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)

          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+“\“windows+9\””&patternType=keyword&sm=0

          • @dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            35 months ago

            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.

              • @dan@upvote.au
                link
                fedilink
                35 months ago

                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.

                • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  35 months ago

                  Having worked in both food service and software, I encourage you not to visit the kitchen of any restaurants you enjoy either.

        • @Wrrzag@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          45 months ago

          Because it checks if the version starts with the string “Windows 9*”, not wether the number is less than 9.

          • @dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.

      • Ziixe
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        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

    • @XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      175 months ago

      .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).

        • @XTornado@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • @kautau@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            35 months ago

            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

    • @Pfnic@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      125 months ago

      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.

      • stewie410
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Hey now, why don’t you join my work and use jboss-4.2.2.GA? (kill me)

      • 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.

      • Rev. Layle
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        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

    • Kogasa
      link
      fedilink
      75 months ago

      I really don’t think it’s that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.

      • @dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        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.

        • Kogasa
          link
          fedilink
          25 months ago

          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.

          • @dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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 :)

            • Kogasa
              link
              fedilink
              15 months ago

              Yes… But ASP.NET Core kept the branding. Thus “Core” still exists, concurrently with the regular “.NET.”

          • @Lmaydev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

    • @labsin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      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.

    • @Vladkar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      35 months ago

      Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name “Wii U”, and Microsoft saw that and said “hold my beer”

    • @Lmaydev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      13 months ago

      .Net is both the umbrella term for the entire ecosystem and the new runtime haha

      Microsoft is so bad at naming things!

  • envelope
    link
    fedilink
    1495 months ago

    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.

        • @eerongalA
          link
          115 months ago

          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.

          • @xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            23
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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?

        • @masinko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          85 months ago

          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.

        • @kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          85 months ago

          At least they don’t control the most popular code hosting site along with the most popular code editing software, right? Right?

    • pelya
      link
      fedilink
      285 months ago

      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.

    • @neutron@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      285 months ago

      And then there’s .net classic and .net core. Making up two entirely separate names shouldn’t be difficult for marketing executives.

      • @dan@upvote.au
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        .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.

        • @NegativeInf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          75 months ago

          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.

          • @Zangoose@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            55 months ago

            Hi, it’s me, the intern refactoring the spaghetti .NET core backend. I’m not in a basement though. AMA

          • @dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            45 months ago

            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.

          • Kogasa
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            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.

            @using (var obj = Html.HandlebarsTemplateFor(m => m.MyObject))
            {
              Name: obj.TemplateFor(o => o.Name)
            }
            

            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.

          • @Lmaydev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            It is very much still supported and will be for a very long time.

            You just shouldn’t start any new products using it.

        • @neutron@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          25 months ago

          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.

    • @nelly_man@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It was an interview with Jonathan Swan about COVID-19 where Trump had a bunch of papers with graphs trying to show that the US was doing well with cases. The paper he handed over showed the rates of deaths per case (though Trump didn’t seem to understand the graph), and Swan was asking him about the high rate of deaths in the US when looking at the total population of the country.

      https://youtu.be/NmrEfQG6pIg

  • LazaroFilm
    link
    fedilink
    English
    29
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I can but we’ll need to re negotiate my salary.

  • @ursakhiin@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    45 months ago

    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.

  • Destide
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35 months ago

    Yes but I’ll l need to charge more as they require disclosure specific equipment

  • @CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25 months ago

    I use .NET for my job. My team shifted to a lot of frontend work with react for about a year when the lastest .NET was .NET 5. Barely a year later after not touching it the latest version was .NET 7. Ridiculous.