|
Need is a strong word, but being able to deploy anywhere is definitely an advantage. Plus its performance is way better due to its light weightiness.
I have switched and never looked back. Specially after .Net core 2.0.
It's not a matter of need, but a matter of efficiency. Reduced costs and better performance makes the change a no brainer. But you know, maybe we should just stick with plain old ASP, who needs anything else? 
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, according to the previous comments, it is not fully mature yet. I will wait until then.
Not knocking it, just want it to be heavily used in the marketplace at full maturity before I try it.
|
|
|
|
|
It is fairly mature at this point. .NET Core 2.1 is in production use in many companies. Most .NET/AWS shops use ASP.NET Core.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: Most .NET/AWS shops use ASP.NET Core.
Good to hear.
I honestly need to learn it eventually. Just have not had the "need" to, so it will take some self-motivation on my part.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not difficult if you've already worked with .NET. You'll miss some assemblies, and there may be slightly different ways of doing certain things (logging, http hosting, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I honestly need to learn it eventually. Just have not had the "need" to, so it will take some self-motivation on my part.
My advice is not to delay it too much. We can become obsolete quite fast these days. There is a lot of not needed learning I have been doing (specially because I work in a stimulating environment) and I have been reaping very relevant benefits by doing that.
Go for it, it's not hard and many things will feel familiar. If you have the chance to start a new project, start with it. And yes, it's stable and production ready.
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
PHP, JavaScript, SQL Server. Actually, if SQL Server's code uses the .NET core and that counted, I suppose I should have voted yes. But not deliberately.
There are certainly enough problems with it, but web-base applications are surprisingly liberating.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
...for us.
honestly, Xamarin is an epic fail.
For most frontends, mobile is way more attractive, and almost every framework or even native coding for each platform is way better than using xamarin. so speaking for mobile, this is not the .net world.
serverside backend code and websites ok, we use .net for that, but in those scenarios you have full knowledge of the server (windows) and absolutely no need for platform independancy.
we have one single windows frontend application left (some wpf app), and alone a look at that xml-mess called ui-design that makes wpf, makes it hard to suppress the instinct of running away fast, crying for help and fleeing back to a good environment.
I have been a big fan of .net since beta in early 2002, but the last 5 five years drove me far...far...faaaar away from considering .net as an environment for doing any frontend-related stuff beside websites, and even those I try to avoid.
just my oppinion. Let me keep mine, I let you keep yours
|
|
|
|
|
The developers that I know that tried WPF gave up on it, it's just too much of a hassle to get things done. Would be interesting to see a poll about WPF usage 
|
|
|
|
|
I think WPF is great 
|
|
|
|
|
I forgive you child
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. I've been using WPF for 10 years now, and vastly prefer it over any other UI technology I've ever used.
Admittedly, I've got some pretty vivid scars from the learning process, but still...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I try to forget the learning process. It wasn't fun
|
|
|
|
|
I think the worst part for me was more of a .NET issue than a WPF issue. About three years after I started using C#, .NET, and WPF we noticed a chronic memory consumption problem in my application, which acts as the front end for our product. We bought .NET Memory Profiler from SciTech, and I spent ten weeks cleaning up dangling reference issues. Most of them were due to programming habits of mine that were best practices in the C++/MFC/Win32 world, but were inadvisable under .NET.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Was expecting some pro WPF sounds, you people are so easily provoked 
My colleague uses the SciTech profiler too, and is very enthousiastic about it, he's a bit more into low level programming than I am currently.
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: you people are so easily provoked
I think WPF fans are a tad sensitive. WPF has a deserved reputation of a steep learning curve and some over-engineered features. Add Microsoft's lack of love on top of that, and I think you can understand our frustration with the unenlightened.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Outside of navigation headaches and load times on complex pages and slower systems (I eventually wrote my own godclass to handle it), I mostly liked WPF. I recently did a UWP app and it felt like they'd smoothed out a lot of the crap I raged about a year prior with WPF. Too bad they don't seem interested in backporting enhancements to WPF, or fully unshackling UWP apps for non-store distribution and/or cases where the sandboxing precludes doing something the apps needs to be able to do.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
What does any of this have to do with .NET Core or the survey? 
|
|
|
|
|
Simple. Core is the .net "that runs everywhere".
And as I stated above, on backend only there is no need for something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
How could I miss that... 
You could run your web application on Linux, of you're into that sort of thing.
I'm using .NET Core for web applications on Windows servers.
Overall .NET Core just works really great, sometimes better than .NET 
Except for EF Core, which can be a real PITA
I'm mostly working with MongoDB now though, so that solves that problem
|
|
|
|
|
We're switching some old projects to core, and new projects are starting in core.
|
|
|
|
|
How easily are your migrations going? Mostly wondering how often you're running into API not supported, or library not available for .netcore type issues and how hard/timeconsuming they've been to resolve.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
We're not using too much 3rd party libs, generally we prefer pure framework whenever possible. Entity framework, json etc they all supports.
In EF, some of code was using lazy loading, we had to make them include tables.
Understanding logging and ILogger interface took some time. At first, you feel uncomfortable without a web.config file.
Web api's are most easy one. Except using db context via DI, nothing changed.
Giving decision about what is a service, which part should I have to use as a service and bind them via DI, life time, etc. will be a problem.
Running projects directly from local IIS was a bit puzzle. In one project we have micro services so instead of opening multiple Visual Studios, they work directly from IIS. Figuring out how to prepare IIS took some time. We had to install hosting bundle for developing version.
DI is so cool. After switching to .Net Core, I started to write lots of unit tests. Without DI it was too hard. Yeah, I know DI was around before Core, but after it forced to use it, and after I understand how good it is, I don't want to go back to old projects for maintenance.
And also, AWS now supports .Net Core and you can deploy a Lambda for a serverless app. Not api gateway, Asp.Net Core app directly.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
