Are the mentions of Core for clarity that its not ".Net Framework?" Or, is that the naming used in your region? (Looks like article OP and HN OP are rue same)
I wish Microsoft hadn't made the naming changes so confusing/'bad.' The delineation is clear to me, explaining it to management was difficult or impossible.
It is a mess to explain .NET Framework only goes until 4.8.2, then we have .NET Core that is only partly compatible, and the renaming with .NET 5 doesn't mean it is full compatible with 4.8.2 as it used to be, rather another .NET linage.
It seems to me that we're nearly at the point where saying just ".NET" is generally accepted as the new path rather than the old one.
When explaining the current .NET ecosystem to a CTO, I would do it in terms of platform independence and roadmap. Being able to run not on windows and having a certain duration of support (LTS builds) are approximately the only things that register for a large swathe of decision makers.
It’s only mentioned a couple times outside the title, could be for search engines as I think people still search for core to try and filter out framework results.
I still see it mentioned as core all the time so I didn’t even bat an eye at the title.
I’m not going to blame OP, this entirely on Satan himself who’s been in charge of naming everything at Microsoft for a long time now.
The distinction is useful because .Net framework is certainly still alive.
I'd say its a combination of myopia + overthinking. On the inside, of course everyone knows the difference between .NET core vs .NET framework. Then, I suspect the final name is chosen via a process similar to selecting a new Pope.
What they should have done, in my opinion, is to use a different name entirely since .NET was always weird to begin with (using a "." in a product name is always strange).
I wish Microsoft hadn't made the naming changes so confusing/'bad.' The delineation is clear to me, explaining it to management was difficult or impossible.
It is a mess to explain .NET Framework only goes until 4.8.2, then we have .NET Core that is only partly compatible, and the renaming with .NET 5 doesn't mean it is full compatible with 4.8.2 as it used to be, rather another .NET linage.
When explaining the current .NET ecosystem to a CTO, I would do it in terms of platform independence and roadmap. Being able to run not on windows and having a certain duration of support (LTS builds) are approximately the only things that register for a large swathe of decision makers.
I still see it mentioned as core all the time so I didn’t even bat an eye at the title.
I’m not going to blame OP, this entirely on Satan himself who’s been in charge of naming everything at Microsoft for a long time now.
The distinction is useful because .Net framework is certainly still alive.
What they should have done, in my opinion, is to use a different name entirely since .NET was always weird to begin with (using a "." in a product name is always strange).