back to article A second preview of .NET Core 3? Shucks, Microsoft. You spoil us

Microsoft has kicked out a second preview of .NET Core 3 and naturally we fired up the IDE to see what has changed. Aside from the improvements in C# 8.0, which require the unwary to manually select the beta language in the project's advanced build properties in order to actually use them, there are some handy new features …

  1. jake Silver badge

    Coincidentally ...

    I saw an job advert requiring "five years experience in .NET Core 3" this morning.

    The entire ecosystem revolving around Redmond is seriously fucked up.

    1. W.S.Gosset Silver badge

      Re: Coincidentally ...

      Clueless recruiters.

      HR has been actively working to drive out anyone capable for over 20yrs in my personal experience.

      1. Warm Braw Silver badge

        Re: Coincidentally ...

        Clueless recruiters

        I recently got a contact (for an entirely unsuitable job) based on a 2007 CV they'd sucked from Jobsite and kept on the offchance they'd have a couple of months of badly missing their targets and needing to spam the universe in the hope of scoring a couple of placements.

        Clearly the challenge is to predict the technology trends of the future and to put them specualtively on your current CV, knowing that when the recruiters actually go through them in 12 years time you'll have the years of experience they're looking for...

      2. muhfugen

        Re: Coincidentally ...

        Here in the US if you see something like that it isnt clueless recruiters, its H1B visa fraud. So they can say they couldnt find an American applicant with the required skills.

    2. J27 Bronze badge

      Re: Coincidentally ...

      That just leads to qualified people not applying, so you end up having to interview unqualified liars (who don't even know when a .NET version came out). Technical recruiters are some of the biggest liars in the world, they all claim to know what they're talking about and just memorise enough buzzwords to sound competent for 10 minutes.

    3. Simon Ward

      Re: Coincidentally ...

      "The whole ecosystem revolving around technical recruitment is seriously fucked up."


  2. Nick Gisburne

    Standalone EXEs - what futuristic sorcery is this?

    "We are working on making it possible to create standalone EXEs for desktop apps"

    With the power of Microsoft we can all go back to where we were 30 or 40 years ago.

    1. overunder Silver badge

      Re: Standalone... in which context?

      Is it me or the MS developers that have lost touch with reality?

      I don't even understand how this is possible unless... the cloud. Fire up a program and wait for all the dependencies to download? I guess there is dumb terminal'ish ways, but surely there has to be hooks to the system outside of a link on your storage device.

      _BUT_ then there's the thought that they even mentioned this. Are they implying this can't natively do what has already been done since, well, forever?

      1. overunder Silver badge

        Re: Standalone... in which context?

        Ignore the above post, I now understand that this is the return of Active Desktop. Prepare for amazing Javascript to run everywhere unknowingly on your system. This is going to be glorious!!

        I guess this is what they bought Electron for.... to party like it's 1999!

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge

          Re: Standalone... in which context?

          in 1999 there was _NO_ ".Not" nor C-pound

          1. Ragarath

            Re: Standalone... in which context?

            Err you're posting on a British site calling the hash symbol a pound. That's not going to go down well.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: Standalone... in which context?

              A British site? Really? Have you read this?

              Quoting from the above: "The Register is headquartered in London, San Francisco and Sydney and the sun never sets on its reporting team around the world."

              Sounds multi-national to me. Get off your high horse, you look silly.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge

      Re: Standalone EXEs - what futuristic sorcery is this?

      I think Micro-shaft is stuck in a loop, but it's going backwards.

      The UI for Windows "Ape" and Win-10-nic went all 2D FLATTY McFLATFACE FLATSO, like Windows 1.0 but uglier.

      Now they BRAG about creating stand-alone EXE's ? I guess they forgot about MS-DOS!

      I have a brilliant idea: STOP using ".Not" in the _FIRST_ place, don't use C-pound, write in C or C++.

      Any takers? We'll "party like it's 1999" writing code that does NOT need ".Not".

      /me points out that if you have not already been doing 'static link' and ZERO ".Not" dependencies, you should be... in which case, stand-alone EXE's have been "getting done" since, like, forever.

    3. The Real Tony Smith

      Re: Standalone EXEs - what futuristic sorcery is this?

      .com files perhaps? Oh, wait, even Hello World is bigger than 64K after Visual Stupid has finished with it.

      1. Dwarf Silver badge

        Re: Standalone EXEs - what futuristic sorcery is this?

        There's still one very useful .com file that still fits in far less than 64K...

        Stick the following into notepad and save it as


        Your AV software should detect this standard test sequence and destroy it. If it just display the message which is readable above, then its time to go and buy yourself some better AV software.

        For those not familiar with the above, its a benign test sequence that is used to check AV software works without having anything malicious involved, its available from EICAR.ORG whats clever about it is that its an executable piece of code that is encoded in such a manner as to be based solely on printable ASCII characters which means that you can cut-and-paste it without needing any other advanced tools or the ability to download executable from the Internet - which most corporate platforms will prohibit.

  3. HmmmYes

    C#8.0 ??

    What is .net now, everything for everyone. Fools errand.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      "Fools errand."

      see icon

  4. HmmmYes

    Heres my gripe - i write an application. Could be big, could be small.

    I look fora long lived deployment - 10-20 years. This is not u usual. I know of lots of long lived applications, chugging away on a box in a factory and what not.

    Will the application still run in 5, 10, even 2 years time? With a middleware so fucking bloated as .net the chance of the runtime ABI breaking is very high. They could have done versioning on the ABI but the size of .net will rapidly go into 10 of gbs.

    Even if a rebuilt the application with each major .net release - something i really dont want to do - i bet the API will break.

    Then you have the problems of a 100 machines having a 100 different versions of the library - MS magic update chooses what to update. And i get a bug that occurs on 3 out 100 boxes. Fucking insane.

    If im betting money on app i dont want to be managing the hell of .net compatibility.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Even if a rebuilt the application with each major .net release - something i really dont want to do - i bet the API will break."

      I have a .NET Framework application that's been running on a server since 2009 without be touched...

      1. CRConrad

        ...running on a server since 2009...

        A server under your control?

        1. HmmmYes

          Re: ...running on a server since 2009...

          Even with Window boxes in my building, in my network, i find they have different versions or, worse, same version but different checksums.

          Anyone who goes down the road of winfows and .net needs their head testing. You are betting the farm that MS is willing and able to maintain and not break a massive lump of kutched-sinked software.

          Listen to anyone whove be shat on by MS in the past - withdrawing tech, not fixing stuff, breaking stuff etc etc

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020