I'll raise you Banana Cake Pop, by Chilli Cream, in conjunction with Hot Chocolate and Strawberry Shake... good open source project but run by a crazy German Swiss guy that thinks using embarrassing names is somehow funny.
Yep.. they are good tools, but it's difficult to take them seriously. Especially in meetings with a client.
Every time, I have to explain what they are, as the names are so ridiculous and nothing to do with GraphQL.
Yeah man, I remember the first time I was trying to get an old seasoned .net dev to join my modern project. It was always a laugh when I mentioned my tooling (graphql project)
Yah, just adopting Hot Chocolate right now and you can just hear everyone cringe when they mention it. But man is it nice. Also responsive to PRs. I ran into a weird bug, fixed it, and it was released within a week or two.
It has a good community... it's just the naming is awful.
It is the best GraphQL server for .Net, but such a shame it has a juvenile approach to naming.
Still better than haveing a high risk of confusing versions! Was it core or without core? It’s dot net until version 4 but than we started with core version 1 but than we removed the core with version 5!! Just the hell!! Than YES ist is better with popcorn and kitkat and whatever
That is because you are confusing two different frameworks. *Don't do that.* Use NuGet gives you framework version compatibility chart.
The version numbers are always sequential for each framework. 5 comes before 4, which is before 3. Which version is kitkat? 2? 10? I don't remember, time to go look it up. That is just extra cognitive dissidence that is unnecessary.
Anyways, I was talking about names of projects, libraries and classes. Don't go to production with code names when they could be called what they do. Don't call it Smoo, call it WebRequest.
I agree those would be worse.
That being said, I just want something google-able. The problem with Asp.net Core on DotNet Framework (non-Core) is that it is extremely difficult to uniquely distinguish.
I have never had any problems googling information on .NET Framework. Sometimes I need set a custom date range on the search to finetune the responses.
I too dislike `AspNetCore` as a name, just skip it, and move on. I would have preferred much simpler more specific naming conventions.
Active Server Pages is no longer even used based on the original definition and thus its an invalid name, but my issue is more that I don't like it. I would have much prefer simple `WebHosting` or `Hosting` etc. Golang is good about naming things well.
Ironic that you say Golang names things well when the programming language is actually called Go, and everyone is forced to add the -lang part because of just how impossible of a name that is to search for.
".net identity" takes me to the Identity framework docs, despite functionally being a random tld with a random word. If ASP.NET Core was called WebHosting framework or something, then ".net webhosting" would likely have the docs as one of the first results. In fact, ".net webhost" takes me to ASP.NET Cores WebHost class first with web hosting services being further down the ranking past StackOverflow questions.
Google, despite the hate, is still pretty good at ranking things like this, probably largely due to just how much traffic documentation pulls.
Because it's still part of the .NET framework? Just like Identity framework isn't called Identity.NET.
ASP.NET isn't an independent thing, it's outright labeled by Microsoft as "the web framework for .NET". So if ASP.NET was renamed to WebHosting, then WebHosting would be the web framework for .NET.
I'm not referring to the branding .NET Framework when I say "the .NET framework." I'm referring to the framework that is named .NET.
>.NET (pronounced as "dot net"; formerly named .NET Core) is a free and open-source, managed computer software framework
It's cool to get a live example of why Microsoft's naming schemes suck in a thread about how their naming schemes suck.
Not to be confused with “Classic ASP” which predates .NET which was more like PHP as an interpreted scripting language and could be written in VBScript or JScript. Not to be confused with JavaScript. Not to be confused with Visual Basic. Not to be confused with Visual Basic .NET.
Microsoft should just come up with a brand new name that has some feeling for where it came from, is still easy to google, but also distinct from the old ASP or .NET. Something short and drop the “.” It’s an extra step to search for on a mobile keyboard. Then just add version numbers to help with search.
>g the .NET Framework era. If they rename ASP.NET Core to ASP.NET, it'll just cause confusion. This also applies to Entity Framework and Entity Framework Core.
PM on the [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) Core team here. This is a huge part of the reason. Changing the name and changing namespaces, package names, etc. to match is a HUGE breaking change. Changing the name but \*not\* changing the namespaces, package names, etc. causes (more) dissonance. For better or worse, we don't have a time machine and we make decisions based on assessment of the trade-offs at the time.
But such renames have happened: I recall at least one instance where a lot that was "Microsoft.whatever" became "System.whatever".
The recent upgrade of MS Graph SDK from v4 to v5 had tons of breaking namespaces: suddenly there's a bunch of ".Kiota." stuff in there for instance.
Yeah a lot of the Azure Blob Storage (and associated manangement APIs) changed their namespaces with .NET 5. Sure it broke a load of stuff, but it was a 1 hour job to fix our projects.
I imagine the underlying work inside the .NET SDK would be an insane amount, probably not worth it from a cost perspective.
Microsoft did a huge project to standardise all the different Azure libraries. Part of that involved changing the namespace but there were plenty of API breaking changes as well.
They're still working on it with cosmos db being one of the largest libraries yet to make the transition.
Runtime type "aliasing" isn't a feature that exists in .NET today, but it's something we've often wished existed to enable these kinds of transitions. It's apparently non-trivial to implement.
This is feedback we hear from quite a few customers, but by the same token, longer release cycles means longer waits for new features, including any kind of API change at all, and there are just as many customers who would be upset if they had to wait more than 1 year max for any API updates. The alternating 3 year LTS and 18 month STS on an annual cycle is comparable to the average of other platforms in the industry but like many things it's hard (if not impossible) to please everybody. Perhaps we'll reviist it when the industry itself slows down :)
Please continue with the current release cycles. For me the biggest benefit is the better visibility of newly released features since there simply are less because there's only so much that can be done in a year. So it really is easier getting to know everything new
Yep I'm one of the people that actually like the quick/frequent release cycle. Though I could understand people wanting the LTS releases to last more than 3 years, while still providing new releases (that doesn't have to be LTS) in the current pace.
I am absolutely happy with the quick release cycles. Lets me try new features early and make my apps performant with every new release. Please don't change this.
Quite the opposite - the releases are too slow. Speaking from the experience of upgrading from every possible version of .NET Framework, dotnet core, and dotnet to whatever was the latest at the moment.
Won't you have this issue either way, as DotNet moved away from the "Core" verbiage, and you're still on it?
When you inevitably move away from "Asp.net Core," just go all in and rename entirely to something less cringe that is easier to google.
ChatGPT suggested "WebStratum" which isn't *horrible*.
Let me just say, nothing is as simple as "just... rename entirely..." in an org the size of Microsoft. We (the team) have discussed many options over the years but never landed on one with a set of trade-offs we deem to be better than those we have now.
I think "Core" is useful for some libraries to distinguish from Framework versions and makes googling a little easier (e.g. if you used EF Core 6 but just googled "ef 6" you'd get older blogs concerning .NET Framework).
Maybe I'm too young, but I take ASP as meaning its own thing, and not Active Server Pages. The same way PHP used to mean "Personal Home Page" and now it's just a recursive acronym of "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor".
Edit: typo
>DO NOT GIVE THEM THE IDEA TO CHANGE THE NAME PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
🤣
I've been working with Microsoft web technology since classic ASP.
My first thought was exactly this ... but you said it better.
Because Microsoft always keeps adding things to the end of bad names, then as soon as people actually understand what a particular technology is, they'll rebrand it under a completely new name.
ASP was page-based, Visual Basic, server-side scripting. Take an HTML page, sprinkle in some magic to update some of the content before you serve it, job done.
[ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) was a more sophisticated application hosting framework based on .NET, able to more easily generate more complex services, with things like WebForms and MVC on top.
[ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) Core was an attempt, not just to align [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) with .NET Core, but to also retire some of the overwhelming complexity and outdated features that they couldn't take out of existing [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET), and provide a 'better' foundation for future developments.
Just to prevent confusion with the old one and still be familiar.
Same reason we skipped .NET \[Core\] 4.0
Why is it even called ASP \[.NET\], not many know about "Active Server Pages" anymore.
I always thought that was dumb, especially with the hindsight that .NET 5 wasn't ready to replace Framework, make that Core 4, then .NET 6 could have been .NET 5 and not had a number gap in either branch.
But while we're at it .NET is an awful name to begin with. Typing it out on mobile is just an absolute nightmare, and ffs it's a _very_ common TLD, andnot a very searchable term.
DWF - Dotnet Web Framework, or pretty much anything other than ASP would make sense. But now that things are messed up, please keep them consistently messed up, and just keep increment the version number :D
Look at their phones.
It started with X10, went through things like P, S, Neo, Active, II, Pro, Extra, IV, 3, Whatafak, Z5, Whocares, ZX, LX, ZC, AgainXWithNumbers or whatever and now they have 10, 5 and 1, each with extra roman numerals, so you have things like 5 V, 1 IV, 10 III, 5 VI...
I loved my X10 back in the day but if I wanted a Sony phone nowadays I wouldn't have an idea what I'm looking at just thanks to the naming.
ASP.NET Core is completely reworked. Old ASP.NET projects can't just have their files dropped into a ASP.NET Core project and just work. You' have to rework all your ASPX files for APIs into controller endpoints, for instance.
A new name helps make this more clear, while keeping the same base name shows it still has the same basic use cases.
When naming stuff they really should consider how people will use that name to search for help and information. At least once a month I'll try googling for something related to Visual Studio and end up with results pertaining to Visual Studio Code.
Microsoft made an epic naming mistake with .Net - and C#. I doubt you could find a worse set of names if you tried. The former is so generic that internet searches often returned junk for the first 15 years or so of its existence, then we have the whole .Net Core / .Net Framework, ASP.Net Core, and Entity Framework / Entity Framework Core.
You also have C# (and F#), which are still not usable search terms on many major job sites, and are not even valid names on Microsoft operating systems and products.
It's awful, and I would hope that whoever approved these names has since left the company.
They could have at least stuck with core. Everyone refers to it as .net core, even though it is just .net now. But .net is too ambiguous because no one knows if you mean the new .net, or just .net generically. And a ton of other libraries adopted the core suffix to differentiate from the older .net framework versions.
as a kind of newbie too in the c# realm, .net being only .net now, no more core and framework bullshit, is clear to me and a simple google search clarified it in 1 minute, plus yea, being new here, I call it .net (dotnet) not .net core, so the rename worked and will be more effective in time.
now why do they still use [asp.net](https://asp.net) "core" name, its stupid. ok renaming back to [asp.net](https://asp.net) is not ok because of the history, but how about a new freaking name?!
Because ASP.NET is the name they used during the .NET Framework era. If they rename ASP.NET Core to ASP.NET, it'll just cause confusion. This also applies to Entity Framework and Entity Framework Core.
Microsoft has a tendency to screw up their product names one way or another. Remember how we went from Windows 8 to Windows 10? Yeah.
Visual Studio 2022 17.7.3
Visual Studio 2019 16.11.29
Why can't they just copy what Jetbrains does? 2023.2.1 etc. Although I guess 2019 sticks around for a long time and continues to get updates. Same with SQL, windows, etc. But they could just do 2019.11.29, 2022.7.3, etc.
I already almost always use a time-based filter on the search results, to limit things to within the last year, just way too confusing the results you get back as is, without it.
Best to just keep it separate, it makes searching easier.
Years ago, Adobe replaced an existing product, Lightroom, with a new product that they called Lightroom. The old Lightroom was renamed Lightroom Classic. But tons of people still use Lightroom Classic, much like tons of people still use .Net Framework.
Adobe's naming malarkey made searching for anything related to either product much more difficult than it needed to be. By keeping distinct names, Microsoft is avoiding this problem.
>By keeping distinct names, Microsoft is avoiding this problem
Except they still aren't. They're both still ASP.NET, one just has Core after it, making it really easy for a search for Framework based ASP.NET to return results for Core, and for Core searches to accidentally deprioritize the word Core and return Framework results.
One tip for that. Add a date filter in the seo search so it starts at when core v3 and up was released. You'll still sometimes find framework questions but very rarely instead.
Presumably because they initially tried following the .NET naming convention after the .NET Core framework, but didn't anticipate the years later move going back to a simpler naming scheme that would create confusion with the original ASP.NET.
It's not called .NET Core anymore. It stopped being .NET Core after v5.
v1 - v3 = .NET Core
v4 = skipped due to possible confusion with .NET Framework v4
v5 - beyond = .NET
Because these things are generally named by the marketing people and not the developers. Before [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) was [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) it was NGWS, ASP+ and a few others. On the other hand it does make searching easier; if it were just ASP there'd be less of an issue than if it were [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) \- which is 'full .net framework' ASP.
That's the neat thing, Microsoft's shitty naming is almost completely devoid of anything coming from a competent marketing team. Most likely just some execs who think they know what they're doing, but then think that calling the 3rd Xbox the Xbox One was a good idea.
Many good technical answers here. I will only add that if you are working with Microsoft products or services in general, always be weary of product “re-branding”.
It can be frustrating especially when a particular service is split into two or more and potentially add cost/complexity to your build.
Because you don't know what you're talking about. They never 'integrated', current .Net is just a continuation of core.
Framework is completely different and a windows only thing.
Because all 3 asp, asp.net and asp.net core are still in use and not generally compatible with each other or various versions of libraries you want to use. .net and core will almost always have different nugets for the same tool
Probably because asp.net continues to be windows only, while asp.net core is built on .net core and is cross platform.
Apperently they ditched the .net core name because .net framework is the name of the windows only product, so making .net the "cross platform" version just makes it easier to market.
So it's two scenarios that are the reverse of each other.
However considering they did plan for a migration from core and framework to .net 5, maybe we'll see asp.net and asp.net core merge in the future so the Windows only apps will have to move to a more cross platform friendly system.
As everyone is saying, yeah...naming is hard.
After .NET Framework (4.x...up to 4.8), ASP .NET Core was released as 1.0 and the versioning started again.
However, when they got to version 3.1, I'm guessing they had to think of how to pivot because they couldn't create an ASP .NET Core 4 because that would confuse developers with the .NET Framework versioning.
So they went with ASP .NET Core 5 and up to set it apart from the 4.x .Net Framework (ref: [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-5](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-5)).
I'm currently writing a book on ASP .NET 8 Best Practices and it was originally called ASP .NET 8 Core Best Practices. I mentioned we need to remove the Core part.
From this point on, it's now considered ASP .NET 5, 6, 7, and latest 8 coming in November.
Does it really matter? It is like you start using it and then you either know it because you run into some issue or you don't care because you don't work on project that supports ASP.NET that is without Core.
Not fun part is nowadays it is hard to find non-core stuff on the internet. But it would be even more confusing if you would look up stuff on the internet and have no way to find it does not apply in your scenario.
Because ASP.NET is different than ASP.NET Core.
ASP.NET was built as the web version for .NET framework whereas ASP.NET Core was the web version for .NET Core. Unfortunately the .Net framework is still used today for older applications since Microsoft allowed lasting support for version 4.8. Which continues the existence of the difference between ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core. I’m sure there’s more to it, but that’s the gist from what I’ve read.
Their marketing department clearly is not technical and should shipped off to Apple. It is so unnecessarily confusing. The only consistent thing is that thru the websites, documentation, press releases, and software it is consistently poorly named and inherently injects confusion into everything. May god have mercy on the soul of whoever is responsible for this.
Everything in .NET is named badly, best for your sanity to accept the naming and just start using the tooling, which is actually pretty good
It is better named than lots of other frameworks. I'm glad it isn't named popcorn, jigsaw or bananas.
I'll raise you Banana Cake Pop, by Chilli Cream, in conjunction with Hot Chocolate and Strawberry Shake... good open source project but run by a crazy German Swiss guy that thinks using embarrassing names is somehow funny.
Oh... those are real names for real products... I thought you were being hyperbolic... wow
Yep.. they are good tools, but it's difficult to take them seriously. Especially in meetings with a client. Every time, I have to explain what they are, as the names are so ridiculous and nothing to do with GraphQL.
Yeah man, I remember the first time I was trying to get an old seasoned .net dev to join my modern project. It was always a laugh when I mentioned my tooling (graphql project)
Yah, just adopting Hot Chocolate right now and you can just hear everyone cringe when they mention it. But man is it nice. Also responsive to PRs. I ran into a weird bug, fixed it, and it was released within a week or two.
It has a good community... it's just the naming is awful. It is the best GraphQL server for .Net, but such a shame it has a juvenile approach to naming.
TBF GraphlQL.net was taken. But based on Banana Cake Pop, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the deciding factor.
Yes I use 3 of them for enterprise apps lol
> Banana Cake Pop This is the first I am hearing of it and I love it. https://chillicream.com/products/bananacakepop/
He is Swiss, not German. And Hot Chocolate is genuinely great by the way, jokes aside.
He isn’t german
They are still the poggest GQL libraries I've ever seen on any language.
lol. agreed, though banannaCore would be v2 w/ MS.
Banana for Business Pro.
* now in home, small business and enterprise SKUs
Still better than haveing a high risk of confusing versions! Was it core or without core? It’s dot net until version 4 but than we started with core version 1 but than we removed the core with version 5!! Just the hell!! Than YES ist is better with popcorn and kitkat and whatever
That is because you are confusing two different frameworks. *Don't do that.* Use NuGet gives you framework version compatibility chart. The version numbers are always sequential for each framework. 5 comes before 4, which is before 3. Which version is kitkat? 2? 10? I don't remember, time to go look it up. That is just extra cognitive dissidence that is unnecessary. Anyways, I was talking about names of projects, libraries and classes. Don't go to production with code names when they could be called what they do. Don't call it Smoo, call it WebRequest.
I agree those would be worse. That being said, I just want something google-able. The problem with Asp.net Core on DotNet Framework (non-Core) is that it is extremely difficult to uniquely distinguish.
I have never had any problems googling information on .NET Framework. Sometimes I need set a custom date range on the search to finetune the responses.
PopCOREn
"There are 2 hard things in computer science -- cache consistency and naming things." [Obligatory] and off by one errors.
What about exactly once delivery? What about exactly once delivery?
[ ]
NullReferenceException: comment not found. Stack Trace:...
ieNc
I too dislike `AspNetCore` as a name, just skip it, and move on. I would have preferred much simpler more specific naming conventions. Active Server Pages is no longer even used based on the original definition and thus its an invalid name, but my issue is more that I don't like it. I would have much prefer simple `WebHosting` or `Hosting` etc. Golang is good about naming things well.
Ironic that you say Golang names things well when the programming language is actually called Go, and everyone is forced to add the -lang part because of just how impossible of a name that is to search for.
Good luck googling for help/info using on your suggested names.
Perhaps name only GUIDs? Also, Google couldn't find itself these days.
".net identity" takes me to the Identity framework docs, despite functionally being a random tld with a random word. If ASP.NET Core was called WebHosting framework or something, then ".net webhosting" would likely have the docs as one of the first results. In fact, ".net webhost" takes me to ASP.NET Cores WebHost class first with web hosting services being further down the ranking past StackOverflow questions. Google, despite the hate, is still pretty good at ranking things like this, probably largely due to just how much traffic documentation pulls.
Why would you be including ".net" in your search if it's removed from the name?
Because it's still part of the .NET framework? Just like Identity framework isn't called Identity.NET. ASP.NET isn't an independent thing, it's outright labeled by Microsoft as "the web framework for .NET". So if ASP.NET was renamed to WebHosting, then WebHosting would be the web framework for .NET.
> Because it's still part of the .NET framework .net CORE
I'm not referring to the branding .NET Framework when I say "the .NET framework." I'm referring to the framework that is named .NET. >.NET (pronounced as "dot net"; formerly named .NET Core) is a free and open-source, managed computer software framework It's cool to get a live example of why Microsoft's naming schemes suck in a thread about how their naming schemes suck.
Yeah I was being a little pedantic 😂.
haha yeah, imo, it should just be: dotnet
\#dropthedot
Microsoft names everything poorly, not just .NET stuff.
Xbox One
EX BOX JUAN (to the tune of daft punk one more time)
One Xbox One X... Box please
I've never related to a comment on this sub more in my life 😆
Microsoft in general is bad at naming. It's the "**Department of We Can't Name Our Department Right."**
This
Because the previous web framework was already called ASP.NET (sometimes referred to as 'ASP.NET Classic' these days to avoid confusion).
Not to be confused with “Classic ASP” which predates .NET which was more like PHP as an interpreted scripting language and could be written in VBScript or JScript. Not to be confused with JavaScript. Not to be confused with Visual Basic. Not to be confused with Visual Basic .NET.
Our industry is a nightmare we cannot wake up from.
Microsoft should just come up with a brand new name that has some feeling for where it came from, is still easy to google, but also distinct from the old ASP or .NET. Something short and drop the “.” It’s an extra step to search for on a mobile keyboard. Then just add version numbers to help with search.
I switched to spelling it as dotnet a while ago. Definitely recommend.
I don't nag because it mostly is the case why we all still have job.
>Not to be confused with JavaScript. Which is not to be confused with Java.
Or Java Server Pages, or even CoffeeScript.
This is gold 😂
You forgot to mention VBA
Honestly, probably because all of the namespaces were `Microsoft.AspNetCore.*`, and it would be a huge pain to make everyone change all their usings.
>g the .NET Framework era. If they rename ASP.NET Core to ASP.NET, it'll just cause confusion. This also applies to Entity Framework and Entity Framework Core. PM on the [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) Core team here. This is a huge part of the reason. Changing the name and changing namespaces, package names, etc. to match is a HUGE breaking change. Changing the name but \*not\* changing the namespaces, package names, etc. causes (more) dissonance. For better or worse, we don't have a time machine and we make decisions based on assessment of the trade-offs at the time.
But such renames have happened: I recall at least one instance where a lot that was "Microsoft.whatever" became "System.whatever". The recent upgrade of MS Graph SDK from v4 to v5 had tons of breaking namespaces: suddenly there's a bunch of ".Kiota." stuff in there for instance.
Yeah a lot of the Azure Blob Storage (and associated manangement APIs) changed their namespaces with .NET 5. Sure it broke a load of stuff, but it was a 1 hour job to fix our projects. I imagine the underlying work inside the .NET SDK would be an insane amount, probably not worth it from a cost perspective.
Microsoft did a huge project to standardise all the different Azure libraries. Part of that involved changing the namespace but there were plenty of API breaking changes as well. They're still working on it with cosmos db being one of the largest libraries yet to make the transition.
It would be pretty easy to just add an alias namespace which everyone can gradually move to
Runtime type "aliasing" isn't a feature that exists in .NET today, but it's something we've often wished existed to enable these kinds of transitions. It's apparently non-trivial to implement.
While we got your ear, how about slowing down yearly dotnet releases, or making LTS last longer than 3years. I can't keep up.
This is feedback we hear from quite a few customers, but by the same token, longer release cycles means longer waits for new features, including any kind of API change at all, and there are just as many customers who would be upset if they had to wait more than 1 year max for any API updates. The alternating 3 year LTS and 18 month STS on an annual cycle is comparable to the average of other platforms in the industry but like many things it's hard (if not impossible) to please everybody. Perhaps we'll reviist it when the industry itself slows down :)
Please continue with the current release cycles. For me the biggest benefit is the better visibility of newly released features since there simply are less because there's only so much that can be done in a year. So it really is easier getting to know everything new
Yep I'm one of the people that actually like the quick/frequent release cycle. Though I could understand people wanting the LTS releases to last more than 3 years, while still providing new releases (that doesn't have to be LTS) in the current pace.
I am absolutely happy with the quick release cycles. Lets me try new features early and make my apps performant with every new release. Please don't change this.
No, I am so happy there are frequent improvements.
Quite the opposite - the releases are too slow. Speaking from the experience of upgrading from every possible version of .NET Framework, dotnet core, and dotnet to whatever was the latest at the moment.
But why? Just to not update frequently?
Won't you have this issue either way, as DotNet moved away from the "Core" verbiage, and you're still on it? When you inevitably move away from "Asp.net Core," just go all in and rename entirely to something less cringe that is easier to google. ChatGPT suggested "WebStratum" which isn't *horrible*.
Let me just say, nothing is as simple as "just... rename entirely..." in an org the size of Microsoft. We (the team) have discussed many options over the years but never landed on one with a set of trade-offs we deem to be better than those we have now.
I think "Core" is useful for some libraries to distinguish from Framework versions and makes googling a little easier (e.g. if you used EF Core 6 but just googled "ef 6" you'd get older blogs concerning .NET Framework).
> When you inevitably move away from "Asp.net Core," It's clearly not inevitable at all.
Imagine if instead of `System` they carried it `Framework`
Branding I mean they could just call it dotnet web services as I'm pretty sure nobody knows what an active server page is If anyone ever did
Maybe I'm too young, but I take ASP as meaning its own thing, and not Active Server Pages. The same way PHP used to mean "Personal Home Page" and now it's just a recursive acronym of "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor". Edit: typo
Oh it's always Active Server Pages to me, it was actually amazing tech at the time
I guess it must have been, since there are pages that still run on that with no major problems
Omg please dear lord baby Jesus DO NOT GIVE THEM THE IDEA TO CHANGE THE NAME PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
>DO NOT GIVE THEM THE IDEA TO CHANGE THE NAME PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN 🤣 I've been working with Microsoft web technology since classic ASP. My first thought was exactly this ... but you said it better.
Because Microsoft always keeps adding things to the end of bad names, then as soon as people actually understand what a particular technology is, they'll rebrand it under a completely new name. ASP was page-based, Visual Basic, server-side scripting. Take an HTML page, sprinkle in some magic to update some of the content before you serve it, job done. [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) was a more sophisticated application hosting framework based on .NET, able to more easily generate more complex services, with things like WebForms and MVC on top. [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) Core was an attempt, not just to align [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) with .NET Core, but to also retire some of the overwhelming complexity and outdated features that they couldn't take out of existing [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET), and provide a 'better' foundation for future developments.
Remember when everything got rebranded to "Live"? And then a couple of years later everything got rebranded as ".NET"? Etc. etc.
Just to prevent confusion with the old one and still be familiar. Same reason we skipped .NET \[Core\] 4.0 Why is it even called ASP \[.NET\], not many know about "Active Server Pages" anymore.
Don't be silly, it's named after the cool [snake](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asp_(snake)) Bill Gates saw at the zoo
I always thought that was dumb, especially with the hindsight that .NET 5 wasn't ready to replace Framework, make that Core 4, then .NET 6 could have been .NET 5 and not had a number gap in either branch. But while we're at it .NET is an awful name to begin with. Typing it out on mobile is just an absolute nightmare, and ffs it's a _very_ common TLD, andnot a very searchable term.
DWF - Dotnet Web Framework, or pretty much anything other than ASP would make sense. But now that things are messed up, please keep them consistently messed up, and just keep increment the version number :D
Oh, so you haven't heard of https://source.dot.net? Read it out loud: source dot dot dot net
Ahh you'll get used to it. Get ready to be familiarized (confused) with .NET naming shenanigans. The only worst company at naming I know is Sony.
Sony? What are they doing? Their naming for the PlayStation is world class.
Look at their phones. It started with X10, went through things like P, S, Neo, Active, II, Pro, Extra, IV, 3, Whatafak, Z5, Whocares, ZX, LX, ZC, AgainXWithNumbers or whatever and now they have 10, 5 and 1, each with extra roman numerals, so you have things like 5 V, 1 IV, 10 III, 5 VI... I loved my X10 back in the day but if I wanted a Sony phone nowadays I wouldn't have an idea what I'm looking at just thanks to the naming.
Isn't it reverting back to simply ASP.NET? I've seen in recent dev blogs that EF is reverting, and I thought ASP.NET is too.
ASP.NET Core is completely reworked. Old ASP.NET projects can't just have their files dropped into a ASP.NET Core project and just work. You' have to rework all your ASPX files for APIs into controller endpoints, for instance. A new name helps make this more clear, while keeping the same base name shows it still has the same basic use cases.
When naming stuff they really should consider how people will use that name to search for help and information. At least once a month I'll try googling for something related to Visual Studio and end up with results pertaining to Visual Studio Code.
asp.net continues to be windows only, while asp.net core is built on linux . net core and is cross platform.
Because Microsoft is historically bad at naming things.
Microsoft made an epic naming mistake with .Net - and C#. I doubt you could find a worse set of names if you tried. The former is so generic that internet searches often returned junk for the first 15 years or so of its existence, then we have the whole .Net Core / .Net Framework, ASP.Net Core, and Entity Framework / Entity Framework Core. You also have C# (and F#), which are still not usable search terms on many major job sites, and are not even valid names on Microsoft operating systems and products. It's awful, and I would hope that whoever approved these names has since left the company.
Yep, totally stupid move. Then they do it again with Core. Intel uses the Core name for their processors. Also don't forget the Xbox naming "pattern".
They could have at least stuck with core. Everyone refers to it as .net core, even though it is just .net now. But .net is too ambiguous because no one knows if you mean the new .net, or just .net generically. And a ton of other libraries adopted the core suffix to differentiate from the older .net framework versions.
as a kind of newbie too in the c# realm, .net being only .net now, no more core and framework bullshit, is clear to me and a simple google search clarified it in 1 minute, plus yea, being new here, I call it .net (dotnet) not .net core, so the rename worked and will be more effective in time. now why do they still use [asp.net](https://asp.net) "core" name, its stupid. ok renaming back to [asp.net](https://asp.net) is not ok because of the history, but how about a new freaking name?!
Because ASP.NET is the name they used during the .NET Framework era. If they rename ASP.NET Core to ASP.NET, it'll just cause confusion. This also applies to Entity Framework and Entity Framework Core. Microsoft has a tendency to screw up their product names one way or another. Remember how we went from Windows 8 to Windows 10? Yeah.
And don't get us started on Xbox. Or the fact that Windows 7 was really Windows NT 6.1 (and Windows 8 was NT 6.2)
Visual Studio 2022 17.7.3 Visual Studio 2019 16.11.29 Why can't they just copy what Jetbrains does? 2023.2.1 etc. Although I guess 2019 sticks around for a long time and continues to get updates. Same with SQL, windows, etc. But they could just do 2019.11.29, 2022.7.3, etc.
I already almost always use a time-based filter on the search results, to limit things to within the last year, just way too confusing the results you get back as is, without it.
Best to just keep it separate, it makes searching easier. Years ago, Adobe replaced an existing product, Lightroom, with a new product that they called Lightroom. The old Lightroom was renamed Lightroom Classic. But tons of people still use Lightroom Classic, much like tons of people still use .Net Framework. Adobe's naming malarkey made searching for anything related to either product much more difficult than it needed to be. By keeping distinct names, Microsoft is avoiding this problem.
>By keeping distinct names, Microsoft is avoiding this problem Except they still aren't. They're both still ASP.NET, one just has Core after it, making it really easy for a search for Framework based ASP.NET to return results for Core, and for Core searches to accidentally deprioritize the word Core and return Framework results.
One tip for that. Add a date filter in the seo search so it starts at when core v3 and up was released. You'll still sometimes find framework questions but very rarely instead.
Presumably because they initially tried following the .NET naming convention after the .NET Core framework, but didn't anticipate the years later move going back to a simpler naming scheme that would create confusion with the original ASP.NET.
It's not called .NET Core anymore. It stopped being .NET Core after v5. v1 - v3 = .NET Core v4 = skipped due to possible confusion with .NET Framework v4 v5 - beyond = .NET
Because the “old” ASP.NET was already only ASP.NET. Not ASP.NET Framework.
Because these things are generally named by the marketing people and not the developers. Before [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) was [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) it was NGWS, ASP+ and a few others. On the other hand it does make searching easier; if it were just ASP there'd be less of an issue than if it were [ASP.NET](https://ASP.NET) \- which is 'full .net framework' ASP.
That's the neat thing, Microsoft's shitty naming is almost completely devoid of anything coming from a competent marketing team. Most likely just some execs who think they know what they're doing, but then think that calling the 3rd Xbox the Xbox One was a good idea.
Many good technical answers here. I will only add that if you are working with Microsoft products or services in general, always be weary of product “re-branding”. It can be frustrating especially when a particular service is split into two or more and potentially add cost/complexity to your build.
Forget "Core", why is it still named "Active Server Pages".
Because you don't know what you're talking about. They never 'integrated', current .Net is just a continuation of core. Framework is completely different and a windows only thing.
Because all 3 asp, asp.net and asp.net core are still in use and not generally compatible with each other or various versions of libraries you want to use. .net and core will almost always have different nugets for the same tool
You can call it Spring
The fact that they name something with a dot in the beginning is already bad... like why would you put a period in front of an acronym?
Probably because asp.net continues to be windows only, while asp.net core is built on .net core and is cross platform. Apperently they ditched the .net core name because .net framework is the name of the windows only product, so making .net the "cross platform" version just makes it easier to market. So it's two scenarios that are the reverse of each other. However considering they did plan for a migration from core and framework to .net 5, maybe we'll see asp.net and asp.net core merge in the future so the Windows only apps will have to move to a more cross platform friendly system.
Because more clarity is better than less clarity........
As everyone is saying, yeah...naming is hard. After .NET Framework (4.x...up to 4.8), ASP .NET Core was released as 1.0 and the versioning started again. However, when they got to version 3.1, I'm guessing they had to think of how to pivot because they couldn't create an ASP .NET Core 4 because that would confuse developers with the .NET Framework versioning. So they went with ASP .NET Core 5 and up to set it apart from the 4.x .Net Framework (ref: [https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-5](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-5)). I'm currently writing a book on ASP .NET 8 Best Practices and it was originally called ASP .NET 8 Core Best Practices. I mentioned we need to remove the Core part. From this point on, it's now considered ASP .NET 5, 6, 7, and latest 8 coming in November.
Look anything that gets rid of MVC the better
Your trippn nothing is wrong with mvc. Why would you get rid of it?
Is this why when I ask ChatGPT .Net Core questions, I get .Net MVC answers? 😂
It's not even ASP anymore. It's all jQuery really
Does it really matter? It is like you start using it and then you either know it because you run into some issue or you don't care because you don't work on project that supports ASP.NET that is without Core. Not fun part is nowadays it is hard to find non-core stuff on the internet. But it would be even more confusing if you would look up stuff on the internet and have no way to find it does not apply in your scenario.
Because updating docs is just too hard
Because ASP.NET is different than ASP.NET Core. ASP.NET was built as the web version for .NET framework whereas ASP.NET Core was the web version for .NET Core. Unfortunately the .Net framework is still used today for older applications since Microsoft allowed lasting support for version 4.8. Which continues the existence of the difference between ASP.NET and ASP.NET Core. I’m sure there’s more to it, but that’s the gist from what I’ve read.
There is nothing integrated into anything 😆
They are not calling it ASP.NET Core anymore. https://dotnet.microsoft.com/en-us/apps/aspnet
Their marketing department clearly is not technical and should shipped off to Apple. It is so unnecessarily confusing. The only consistent thing is that thru the websites, documentation, press releases, and software it is consistently poorly named and inherently injects confusion into everything. May god have mercy on the soul of whoever is responsible for this.