|
"We would, but we can't get management to upgrade us from Visual Studio 2012" ?
Truth,
James
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of folks use .NET Core with VS Code (which is free).
|
|
|
|
|
James Curran wrote: We would, but we can't get management to upgrade us from Visual Studio 2012
Sounds like you have more serious problems to deal with then .NET Core.
|
|
|
|
|
Depending on the likelihood of getting them to change their mind, "probably not" or "no".
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
|
|
|
|
|
Lucky you. We're stuck with VS 2008.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently developing micro services in .NET Core.
However, since it's fairly new and not every library fully supports .NET Core yet I use it when possible.
For example, for one component I'm using some client libraries for interacting with Dynamics 365, which was not written in .NET Core so for that application I use .NET 4.7.
I must say I like .NET Core, but it still has some issues as well.
The new .NET Core 2.1 introduced some version specific dependencies which are a real PITA.
And Entity Framework Core just doesn't have all the functionality that the "regular" version of EF has, making it sometimes slow and painful to work with.
And of course then there's the issue of third party libraries not fully supporting .NET Core.
Microsoft seems to be pushing .NET Core though, so I guess I'll just hop on the bandwagon.
It's not all that different from regular .NET anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
It may just be the luck of the draw, but I have still not needed to use this technology/framework yet...in dev, prod, whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the open source/cross platform quasi-replacement for .net, primarily MVC style web apps.
from my understanding, feature parity is close enough to make it a viable option for greenfield dev, but due to the number of 3rd party libs only compiled for the mainstream .net framework trying to port existing sites over is likely to be painful unless they're really small or don't use any 3rd party libs.
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
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to do Forms, forget about it, there is no Forms Designer in .NET Core.
It's mainly aimed at backend development.
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: If you want to do Forms
Tech heresy!
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|