dotnet developer
dotnet developer
95 comments
-
-
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.
-
It's like naming your company x
-
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.
-
Still better than .dot
-
I totally agree.socialmedia
-
I can but we’ll need to re negotiate my salary.
-
Well .NET is dead now so I guess .COM and .ORG are dead too?
-
.NET is better than ever wdym
-
-
-
But we’re an EDU!!!!
-
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.
-
Can you spot the error? Johnson went to the trump organization for a professional field.
-
Yes but I'll l need to charge more as they require disclosure specific equipment
-
-
That's hilarious!
95 comments
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"
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.
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.
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.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
Strange argument... how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.
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
.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
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 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.
Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name "Wii U", and Microsoft saw that and said "hold my beer"
I’m developing it for Xbox One X.
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.
example.net
Razor Blazor
.Net is both the umbrella term for the entire ecosystem and the new runtime haha
Microsoft is so bad at naming things!