JPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 5 months agodotnet developerprogramming.devimagemessage-square12fedilinkarrow-up14arrow-down10
arrow-up14arrow-down1imagedotnet developerprogramming.devJPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · 5 months agomessage-square12fedilink
minus-squareaberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·5 months agoOk, but we all should admit: .net is a terrible name.
minus-squareneutron@thelemmy.clublinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoAnd then there’s .net classic and .net core. Making up two entirely separate names shouldn’t be difficult for marketing executives.
minus-squaredan@upvote.aulinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-25 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.
minus-squareNegativeInf@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoJust because it’s no longer supported doesn’t mean there’s not some poor intern refactoring spaghetti backend in a basement somewhere using it.
minus-squaredan@upvote.aulinkfedilinkarrow-up1·5 months agoSure, 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.
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.