Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Open Source Microsoft

Microsoft Introduces .NET Core 187

New submitter I will be back writes: Microsoft's Immo Landwerth has provided more details on the open source .NET Core. Taking a page from the Mono cookbook, .NET Core was built to be modular with unified Base Class Library (BCL), so you can install only the necessary packages for Core and ship it with applications using NuGet. Thus, NuGet becomes a first-class citizen and the default tool to deliver .NET Core packages.

As a smaller and cross-platform subset of the .NET Framework, it will have its own update schedule, updating multiple times a year, while .NET will be updated once a year. At the release of .NET 4.6, Core will be a clear subset of the .NET Framework. With future iterations it will be ahead of the .NET Framework. "The .NET Core platform is a new .NET stack that is optimized for open source development and agile delivery on NuGet. We're working with the Mono community to make it great on Windows, Linux and Mac, and Microsoft will support it on all three platforms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Introduces .NET Core

Comments Filter:
  • Their redesigning the .NET infrastructure, but bumping up the version number as a minor revision? 4.5 to 4.6?
    • That's because it is a minor version bump - the main difference is in how projects consume it.

    • by Njorthbiatr ( 3776975 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @03:38PM (#48533827)

      They used up all of their version increments when they went from Windows 8.1 to 10.

    • Re:Minor revision? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gregmac ( 629064 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @03:43PM (#48533869) Homepage

      .NET Framework is really two parts: the "built in libraries" and the CLR (common language runtime). When you install a Framework version, it installs only the CLR version it depends on, and not earlier ones (at least this is true at time of writing).

      .NET Framework 1.0 runs on CLR 1.0, and .NET Framework 2.0 runs on CLR 2.0. Okay, this makes sense and is easy to follow.

      Where it gets confusing is .NET Framework 3.0 and 3.5 -- both still run on CLR 2.0.

      .NET Framework 4.0, 4.5, and 4.5.1 runs on CLR 4 (they actually just call it "4", not "4.0").

      Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-u... [microsoft.com]

      What's makes this stupidly confusing is the compatibility: If you have .NET 3.5 installed, you can run a 2.0 application. If you have .NET 4.5 installed, you can run a 4.0 application, but you can't run a 3.5 application.

      IMHO, if they had just used 2.1 and 2.2 instead of 3.0 and 3.5, this could be much less confusing: .NET 4 apps run on .NET 4, and .NET 2 apps would run on .NET 2. Maybe they're doing this from now on, but the fact that 3.x is really 2.0 has screwed this up. I also don't get why they skip to .5 but that's far less of an issue.

      That said, this is the company that thinks 95+1 = 98, Vista+1 = 7, and 8+1 = 10.

      • What's makes this stupidly confusing is the compatibility: If you have .NET 3.5 installed, you can run a 2.0 application. If you have .NET 4.5 installed, you can run a 4.0 application, but you can't run a 3.5 application.

        That's not just confusing, it's unacceptable. .NET 3.5 will still run all former versions' applications, at least, the ones I've tried... since it keeps the old runtimes around.

      • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
        You're only guaranteed to be compatible within a version number. .Net 3.x has syntactical sugar that did not work with 2.x, but it did compile down to 2.x compatible bytecode. It may have been confusing, but there was no point in making another framework that the only difference was it refused to work with different version numbers, but was otherwise 100% compatible. Your argument was to call it 2.2, but that wouldn't work either, because of certain guarantees that MS places on major version numbers.
    • .NET Core is the redesign.

      .NET Framework (the full big monolithic install like we've got now) remains backwards-compatible and so 4.6 is appropriate.

    • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

      .NET Core will now use semantic versioning [semver.org]. I'm not sure if .NET Framework will do the same... I don't know of anything planned for 4.6 that violates the rules of semantic versioning.

      The overall synchronized release of .NET will now be labeled by year, e.g. ".NET 2015".

    • They mentioned the .Net Core is already used in ASP.NET 5 and .Net Native but yeah... it still sounds like a major version change. I wander if they are thinking extending .Net to Mac OS, Linux, IOS, and Android this way is going to allow them to eventually replace java.

  • First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    Took long enough. So long that "winning" no longer matters.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • iPad/Surface

        Ihe rest are fine but that is more than a little unfair.

        Ms have been beating on tablets for years. In 2005 the HP-Compaq TC1100 was almost the flagship for Windows XP tablet edition (it was a fantastic machine, ran Linux amazingly well and I still wish I had one, but faster). In fact if you read the insane iPad patent carefully, you'll see that because it only includes the exterior case and anything away from the edge is "just for illustrative purposes" and not normative in the patent, the TC110

      • What you describe is the implementation details. The end result is that Microsoft is jumping onto the F/OSS bandwagon, which was long overdue. So yes, it's definitely a win for F/OSS - finally the last major OS and development tools maker is fully acknowledging that the model is not only valid, but preferred, at least for some types of applications.

        That it is also a win for Microsoft is orthogonal to all that.

  • by Urkki ( 668283 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @03:47PM (#48533897)

    I have to work with Java after a long while, and it is just... Suffocating. Archaic. Kludgey. Oracle. Ask! toolbar. trWTF.

    C#, please come and rescue us! F#, deliver us from evil! MS has a chance to do some real good on the backend/server side landscape here. Let's hope they'll somehow manage to not screw it up!

    I don't wish for Java to disappear or fail, mind you, I just wish I don't need to work with it in future...

    • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

      I am definitely in the .NET camp. But if you are interested in functional programming and you have to work in the JVM, you might want to consider switching to Scala. It's pretty good stuff.

    • Migrate to Java 8. I think that both languages are excellent, but I must say that Java 8's "stream" API is much easier to understand and work with than LINQ.

      • by godefroi ( 52421 )

        LINQ, or the Enumerable extension methods? Results (can be) similar, language is very different.

        The enumerable extension methods plus lambdas is more similar to Java's stream API, but only an insane person would prefer Java's implementation. As for LINQ (the DSL for working with the same methods), it's FAR less common. I rarely see it in practice, and I don't generally prefer it.

        • I honestly wasn't aware of the Enumerable extension methods. I haven't used C# is quite awhile, so I haven't kept up with my C# knowledge. I was comparing the DSL style to streams. Looking at the article the AC posted above, it looks like the enumerable extension methods and streams would be a fairer comparison. In which case, they look very similar.

          • by godefroi ( 52421 )

            LINQ the DSL was the big news when it was released, but in the real world, it has gotten very little traction. The Enumerable extension methods that are the plumbing behind it, however (after all, the DSL simply gets translated into calls to this stuff by the compiler), are quite common.

    • by Opyros ( 1153335 )

      Death knoll for Java

      So, this is the hill which Java chose to die on? <ducks and runs>

    • I have to work with Java after a long while, and it is just... Suffocating. Archaic. Kludgey.

      Have you actually worked with C# much? It's basically the same as Java.......

  • Haters gonna hate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @03:59PM (#48534005) Homepage

    Those who have decided MS is eternally evil will never accept .NET. But you gotta admit that Microsoft is doing this right. This isn't the Gates / Balmer company any more. It seems that Microsoft realized that the Wintel & MS Office monopolies are dead, and that the bazaar is defeating the cathedral.

    Their new hope is Azure. All this open-sourcing of .NET is to entice people to use .NET and thus use Windows Azure. By eliminating the stigma of being closed and proprietary, they eliminate the #1 objection to using .NET. Note that this door is open both ways: not only is .NET opening, but Azure is supporting other stacks: node and LAMP for example. They don't care what tools you use anymore, they just want your hosting business.

    • by Anrego ( 830717 ) *

      Yup.

      I personally don't think I'll ever trust Microsoft as a company. Microsoft may seem somewhat benign these days, but they did some pretty damn evil stuff back in their day. The spirit of Microsoft past, which left a trail of corpses behind it back in the 90s and early 00s and put things in place to bolster their business which still cause grief to this very day is still in there. To them anti competitive practices were practically a religion, and just about everything they did had an end goal of crushing

      • Microsoft may seem somewhat benign these days,

        u wot m8?

        Benign?

        They forced their dreadful, but patent encumbered exFAT filesystem right into the SD card spec. Never mind that it means that one has to pay royalties for a bad filesystem where the standard, royalty free and already implemented everywhere UDF wold have been a better choice.

        In fact a compliant SD card controller won't even nexessarily allow raw block access to the device unless it's exFAT formatted. So you can't even put a better filesystem on

    • Re:Haters gonna hate (Score:4, Informative)

      by gronofer ( 838299 ) on Friday December 05, 2014 @10:18PM (#48536421)

      Never say never. But how about they stop extorting royalties from software patents first? That's pure evil by many programmers' standards. I'd also like to be clear that they are no longer in the business of inventing "standards" that are intended to make their own products incompatible with anything else. I see that their office software still doesn't use the Open Document format by default.

    • Speaking of "Windows Azure" - it's not that anymore, the "Windows" bit is gone. It's now just "Microsoft Azure".

      Which should also tell you something.

  • Maybe it isn't everything you could hope for, but it is a huge concession to the idea that the Slashdot crowd set out in favor of so long ago. Proprietary software steadily lost ground on the merits and now MS has to release code for many aspects of their whole ecosystem. You can all tip a wine glass and scrub your monocles, it is Progress.

"There is no statute of limitations on stupidity." -- Randomly produced by a computer program called Markov3.

Working...