All true but .Net is still very much alive and well. Including it as a legacy architecture shows a technical debt bias and lack of understanding of what .Net is today.
It's the very reason managers and architects make bad decisions from the start and contribute to the problem out of the gate.
It's confusing how the frameworks are being named: NET Framework, NET Core and now NET. Maybe NET Framework can be considered out of date?
I could only see myself using NET Framework for Windows OS specific applications such as P/Invoke or WPF (not sure what the cross platform status of WPF is). Otherwise, you can develop applications for any platform using NET Core and NET.
At my current company, we have applications written in NET Framework (WinForms and ASP.NET), NET Core (AWS Lambda, ECS Tasks) and NET (ASP CORE on AWS EC2). And it's the NET Framework applications that are holding us back, since they are not compatible with the newer library types (Cannot add a NET or NET Core project as a dependency to a NET Framework project). I could write a shared library using NET Standard to target both projects, but that introduces a new problems...
problems
In this case, you need to install any NuGet package that a NET Standard references into the other projects, otherwise they will not be copied over on build. Plus if a project already uses a NuGet package but a different version, the problem becomes more complex with assembly version resolution
At that point, I would rather re-code everything to no longer use NET Framework, because anything I could do with it, I could do with NET Core or NET. Eventually, I just hope everything is just NET and the rest dies.
Based on that, I would say that NET is not legacy, but NET Framework might be legacy and potentially not a good choice depending on what you are doing with it. The current ecosystem is very confusing >.<
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
All true but .Net is still very much alive and well. Including it as a legacy architecture shows a technical debt bias and lack of understanding of what .Net is today.
It's the very reason managers and architects make bad decisions from the start and contribute to the problem out of the gate.
It's confusing how the frameworks are being named: NET Framework, NET Core and now NET. Maybe NET Framework can be considered out of date?
I could only see myself using NET Framework for Windows OS specific applications such as P/Invoke or WPF (not sure what the cross platform status of WPF is). Otherwise, you can develop applications for any platform using NET Core and NET.
At my current company, we have applications written in NET Framework (WinForms and ASP.NET), NET Core (AWS Lambda, ECS Tasks) and NET (ASP CORE on AWS EC2). And it's the NET Framework applications that are holding us back, since they are not compatible with the newer library types (Cannot add a NET or NET Core project as a dependency to a NET Framework project). I could write a shared library using NET Standard to target both projects, but that introduces a new problems...
problems
In this case, you need to install any NuGet package that a NET Standard references into the other projects, otherwise they will not be copied over on build. Plus if a project already uses a NuGet package but a different version, the problem becomes more complex with assembly version resolution
At that point, I would rather re-code everything to no longer use NET Framework, because anything I could do with it, I could do with NET Core or NET. Eventually, I just hope everything is just NET and the rest dies.
Based on that, I would say that NET is not legacy, but NET Framework might be legacy and potentially not a good choice depending on what you are doing with it. The current ecosystem is very confusing >.<