I use .NET for my job. My team shifted to a lot of frontend work with react for about a year when the lastest .NET was .NET 5. Barely a year later after not touching it the latest version was .NET 7. Ridiculous.
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.
Not an intern, but this week I’ve unraveled some mysteries in ASP.NET MVC 5 (framework 4.8). Poked around the internals for a while, figured out how they work, and built some anti-spaghetti helpers to unravel a nested heap of intermingled C#, JavaScript, and handlebars that made my IDE puke. I emulated the Framework’s design to add a Handlebars templating system that meshes with the MVC model binding, e.g.
and some more shit to implement variable-length collection editors. I just wish I could show all this to someone in 2008 who might actually find it useful.
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.
The API is fine. It returns the internal version number (which is 4.0 for Windows 95), not a string. learn.microsoft.com/…/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa. There’s no built-in API that returns “Windows 95” as a string.
As what often happens, using `` for paths is for backwards compatibility.
Neither CP/M nor MS-DOS 1.0 had folders. When folders were added in MS-DOS 2.0, the syntax had to be backwards compatible. DOS already used forward slashes for command-line options (e.g. DIR /W) so using them for folders would have been ambiguous - does that DIR command have a /W option, or is it viewing the contents of the W directory at the root of the drive? Backslashes weren’t used for anything so they used them for folders.
This is the same reason why you can’t create files with device names like con, lpt1, and so on. DOS 2.0 has to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 where you could do something like TYPE foo.txt > LPT1 to send a document to a printer. The device names are reserved globally so they can work regardless of what folder you’re in.
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Sodtware 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.
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
some legacy software checked if the OS name began with “Windows 9” to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
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.
Maybe it’s a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the “Windows 9” substring doesn’t even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there’s no C function that returns the string, but there’s a ver command. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)
This doesn’t prove anything, but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring. It’s not hard to imagine that code written circa 2000 would not be future proof. sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+""window…
I have no complaints about just calling it .NET. The distinction between .NET and .NET Framework isn’t much of a problem. It’s the fact that .NET and .NET Core aren’t actually different that’s odd. It underwent a name change without really being a different project, meanwhile the Framework -> Core change was actually a new project.
It underwent a name change without really being a different project
The name difference was only to differentiate the legacy .NET Framework with the new .NET Core while both were being developed concurrently. They never intended to keep the “Core” suffix forever. .NET Core had a lot of missing APIs compared to .NET Framework 4.5., and “.NET 1.0” would have been ambiguous. It was to signify that it was a new API that isn’t fully compatible yet.
Once .NET Core implemented nearly all the APIs from the legacy .NET Framework, the version numbers were no longer ambiguous (starting from .NET 5.0), and the legacy framework wasn’t used as much as it used to be, it made sense to drop the “Core” suffix :)
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.
I agree, it was mostly a joke. But as the parent commenter explained, “.net is now dot net” is still confusing. They really should just cut ties with the .net name and start fresh. “.net is now MS Interop Framework” or some such. Adopt more sane server versioning moving forward, so searching for information isn’t so wild across all the possible variations and versions of .net, dot net core, dot net framework, asp.net, etc
The reasoning it was to not confuse with .net framework 4.x series, and since they went beyond 4.x, it’s just .net now. I believe .net core moniker was to explicitly distinguish is from framework versions.
It didn’t help the confusion at all, tch. Being a .net guy since 1.0, you just figure it out eventually
It was an interview with Jonathan Swan about COVID-19 where Trump had a bunch of papers with graphs trying to show that the US was doing well with cases. The paper he handed over showed the rates of deaths per case (though Trump didn’t seem to understand the graph), and Swan was asking him about the high rate of deaths in the US when looking at the total population of the country.
Man, if the media was worth a damn it could absolutely bury Trump in negative campaign ads. It’s one thing to run a single valid negative campaign ad. With Trump you could collect them like fucking pokemon.
That’s the problem though. His core supporters define themselves by who they oppose, so anything negative said about him is seen as an attack and becomes fuel for the hate machine
Holy shit! That Swan guy is a fucking legend. I’ve never seen Trump get that hounded by a journalist before!! He needs to et this more often. Why the fuck aren’t more people pressuring him with questions like this?
Remember how he abolished press briefings at the White house because Sarah Sanders couldn’t and didn’t want to answer questions from those pesky journalists?
Yeah, I found it on my laptop and was too lazy to send it over to my phone where I was on lemmy. So I typed it up, and then I actually sent the link to my phone when it was pointed out that it was broken.
Well, maybe lazy isn’t the right word. But I was too something.
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.
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.
That’s sort of the problem. It’s easy to Google S3 since it’s a distinct (if obnoxiously short) term. Blob is already an overloaded term.
An example of a great name from Microsoft is Excel, it’s relatively short but meaningless so if you Google “Excel Sum” you’ll get wonderful results… “Blob Get” is going to get you a lot of random stuff.
Edit: the top result for blob get is accurate on Google but you’ll also quickly see this result from that site we all hate:
Need help! How do I get the blob fish, basking shark and dwarf whale?
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.
