Sorry, what's .Net again?
The runtime? You mean .Net, or .Net Core, or .Net Framework? Oh, you mean a web framework in .Net. Was that Asp.Net or AspNetcore?
Remind me why we let the "Can't call it Windows 9" company design our enterprise language?
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
1627 points (99.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
20230 readers
1407 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can't call it Windows 9
But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.
For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with "Windows 9" to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
The reason they checked that it started with "Windows 9" was because it worked for "Windows 95" and "Windows 98"
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Software 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.
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.
load more comments
(16 replies)
.net core is not a thing anymore in case somebody it's not aware, now is just .net. (unless you use really old version of course).
load more comments
(3 replies)
Because they have dozens of years of experience! They didn't learn anything from it, but they have it!
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I scream silently everytime.
May I introduce you to Usb 3.x renaming?
3.0, 3.1Gen1, 3.2Gen1, 3.2Gen1x1 are the 5Gbps version.
3.1Gen2, 3.2Gen2, 3.2Gen1x2, 3.2Gen2x1 are the 10Gbps version.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I really don't think it's that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
Microsoft names many things stupidly.
Microsoft Azure Blob
(Yes it's a real product they market)
I mean, blob (and object storage in general) has been used as a term for a long time. It isn't particularly new, and MS didn't invent it.
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?
load more comments
(5 replies)
Visual Studio ~~Code~~
To prevent confusion, I call them "VS Code" and "Visual Studio IDE", because if you say Visual Studio, people assume you mean Visual Studio Code.
And renames a random product every month, following a restructuring it's licensing
At least they don't control the most popular code hosting site along with the most popular code editing software, right? Right?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Like naming a new TLD .zip!
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That aligns with their fucked up naming conventions anyway.
No, you'll need to contact Kim Dotcom. I am merely Kim Dotnet.
Ok, but we all should admit: .net is a terrible name.
And then there's .net classic and .net core. Making up two entirely separate names shouldn't be difficult for marketing executives.
.NET Core doesn't exist any more. It's just .NET now. I think that changed around the release of .NET 5?
The classic version is mostly legacy at this point too.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Still better than .dot
I totally agree.socialmedia
I can, but due to the extra strains involved the price of this contract will increase.
How many strains does it take to develop using .net? Are we talking high end or ditch weed?
I can but we’ll need to re negotiate my salary.
But we’re an EDU!!!!
view more: next ›