This is good news for experienced .NET developers and newcomers alike. It marks the end of the journey from legacy .NET Framework to fully open source cross-platform .NET.
.NET Standard was confusing, and the ubiquitous TFMs in the early days were even more so. But all of those struggles where made to achieve a cross-runtime compatibility layer to make it easier to support both ecosystems. It was a Herculean effort by Microsoft, and they achieved it.
Now it's purpose has been served and as we move forward we can all just use the simple name of netX.Y, unless we're library authors that want to continue to support legacy .NET Framework as well.
I fear it marks the beginning of a very long dark journey, where .net developers are forced to work on more and more obsolete software while looking with envy towards other platforms which are actually maintained.
The "core" migration is not a problem for short-lived startups, but .net is used a lot in business and enterprises. They don't rewrite their whole stack every two years but prefer an incremental approach. Since a lot of libraries will never be ported to core, a lot of enterprises will never migrate, since there will always be this critical internal app on web forms or whatever.
It is amazing that .net now runs on Linux, but it is a disaster that this platform change is tightly coupled to completely unrelated components like the C# compiler version. Developers on the framework now is stuck on an obsolete version of C# forever, cannot upgrade entity framework and so on.
C# attracted a lot of Java developers back when it got lambdas and Linq and async and whatnot, and Java seemed stuck in last century. Is it going to be the other way around in the future?
That's not my experience. Enterprises usually schedule far in advance budget specifically for the sole purpose of upgrades. Every product has a life of end support and projects to move to the next version are a reality in the enteprise market that brings a lot of money to the table.
For .NET it will be exactly the same.
I agree, probably even more polarizing than the Python 2/3 fiasco. All big applications in C# have been built on .Net Framework and migration to Core is non-trivial if you use any of the EOL technologies. OSS has mostly migrated by now, so on Framework you’re left with outdated dependencies that might have fixed security holes, but you cannot upgrade. Also we’re stuck with C# 7.3 as 8 requires .Net Core 3.
I am not sure about the end of the journey. Lots of legacy .NET Framework code means I will continue targeting .NET Standard 2.0. That's why nobody used 2.1 - it did not support legacy framework. .NET 5 does not solve this problem. Just renaming .NET Core (3+1) to .NET 5 won't magically make legacy code portable.
Also, there is still very popular Unity 3D, that can target later framework, but will continue to run on the legacy one itself for a while.
My understanding is that Unity is hoping to catch up as soon as some of the final AOT stuff merges from Mono into .NET 6, so "for a while" in the case of Unity is now supposed to be a year or less (given Preview versions).
This may have been to disambiguate between similar sounding phonemes. English phonetic alphabets used for radio had pronunciations like 'tree' for 3 and 'niner' for 9.
Maybe we need a new unit of measure: the flip. Similar to how SN came up with the bi suffixes for binary (mebi vs. mega, etc.). The flip would be a small flop.
Thank you for this. I know it's a big undertaking to make a large project available to the community like this. Please don't let the side show discourage you.
I was recently reading the Wikipedia page about comparative neuron counts in the brains of various animals. The most notable observation to me at the time was that ravens have a similar neuron count that of to pigs and dogs--far more than cats, for example.
It seems neuron counts matter, but at the same time they don't have a big effect?
Elephants are intelligent but not that much per the number of cells. Raccons are probably more intelligent than cats and have more neurons, ok. And why are Capybaras surprisingly high on the list?
The analogy sounds good, up until the product has stickers telling you to purchase this item from Amazon. That's disingenuous. The stickers in this analogy would tell customers that they can go to the product's own web site to register for a subscription. That's what Apple doesn't allow.
I had a chance to see an F-1 at the Destination Moon exhibit which just opened at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. It is astonishingly large. If you're in the area, or near one of the other (few) locations where they are on display, I would definitely recommend going.
If anyone's near Huntsville, AL, the Space and Rocket Center has stacks of stuff for your gawking pleasure. Although I think the only F-1 you can go up and rub on is outside the MSFC main building, which you wouldn't get to unless you take a MSFC tour.
She said under Code of Conduct, "This was something I didn't always have when first organizing groups years ago, and I learned over time why it's necessary." I was curious about that and hoped that she would elaborate.
If you look at the list of unacceptable behaviors, each one of those is pretty much guaranteed to happen given a sufficiently large group and enough time. The amount of time it takes for the code to be clearly violated is typically far less that you expect or want it to be.
The interesting thing is that many/most offenders don’t think they are breaking the code even if they had read it. That’s why the wording is important — it helps during the intervention stage.
The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
----
Yes, at least one of those will eventually happen. And when it does, the person should be pointed to the rules and told that they should have known it was unacceptable. What happens from that point is the question.
IMO, if they can't accept those rules, I don't want them around. They're pretty basic, IMO.
If they accept them, but continually violate them, I also don't want them around.
Agreed. A number of defensive comments here seem to be emotional reactions to perceived attempts at being 'told what to do', when in fact, most codes of conduct are not much more than social contracts. Or at least, that is how they have worked in most groups I have been a member of.
The CoC's come from a "don't do these things we disapprove of". Trolling, doxxinng, harassment, sexualization (that doesn't directly pertain to the discussion). This is pretty much a "don't be an ass to people".
The problem arises when a CoC is started or introduced. it's usually because of a single person being an ass, and 1 or more people taking the brunt. But when the organizers put this forth, they too can either do it without shame and blame, or with (and thus violating their 'dont be an ass' set of codes).
Example of a better way to introduce these: "Last year we had someone act terribly to member(s). We apologize for having to do this as almost all the people act with dignity and respect. But we are unfortunately put in the position of spelling out what acting decent entails, and what it does not."
The hard one there is the 'unwelcome sexual advances' - the mating signal is tough as hell, and is different per person. It's this awkward dance, to show interest but not act 'creepy'. I've even met some that expect others to know they aren't showing any signals - and thus every sexual advance is unwelcome even if they say nothing about it being unwelcome.
In this particular context (large, professional groups), I think the idea is that there should be no sexual advances or presumption of sexual advances at these professional events.
> I've even met some that expect others to know they aren't showing any signals - and thus every sexual advance is unwelcome even if they say nothing about it being unwelcome.
The baseline assumption is that no one is sending signals in a professional context (even if some do, even if some do with malicious intent). There are graceful ways to initiate engagement in a non-professional context that opens the doors for appropriate signal sending. Even this must be handled carefully, since one person may be thinking “romance”, while the other is thinking “professional socialization”. This is especially true if one person is in a position of power (e.g., a VC in a start up community).
.NET Standard was confusing, and the ubiquitous TFMs in the early days were even more so. But all of those struggles where made to achieve a cross-runtime compatibility layer to make it easier to support both ecosystems. It was a Herculean effort by Microsoft, and they achieved it.
Now it's purpose has been served and as we move forward we can all just use the simple name of netX.Y, unless we're library authors that want to continue to support legacy .NET Framework as well.