Well they did have a valid reason for a rename, .NET 5.0's announcement coincided with discontinuing Mono and Xamarin, and uniting the non-Windows .NET flavors under a single platform. They also planned to iterate more rapidly and add APIs beyond .NET Standard.
But yes, choosing ".NET" as the new name was a bad idea, since now when someone says .NET you have no idea if they are referring to the modern runtime, or its various generations collectively.
I, for one, think dropping the "Core" suffix (absolutely dumb naming) was the right thing. Yes, it might have created some confusion with the old .NET aka .NET Framework but I hope it's temporary. It's been five years of .NET-no-suffix and nine of it being cross-platform. At some point people should just educate themselves and stop thinking that .NET is somehow Windows only.
Good luck with that, the .NET team keeps referring this is a recurring problem trying to get new users that rather pick something else for their startups or teaching curriculum, just go listen to .NET podcasts where well known figures got interviewed.
This announcement mentions they are separating business and technical governance, I suspect they are trying to limit Vercel's influence, and prevent them from taking it in a direction that only benefits them.
> Figure out what works and keep it, is that so hard?
Well, short answer is that it's been in the "figure out what works" phase for many years now. The developer experience has improved a lot over the years, but it's at the expense of constant breaking changes and dependency hell if you want to upgrade existing code.
This is probably the best answer to my confusion. Not too negative or overly optimistic. We are just still fleshing out how we want to do this and there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen finding various ways to make the same dish.
What makes this study flawed is that they had pianists performing actual pieces of music. Pianists will change their attack to express different tone qualities, sure. But this has more to do with your muscles being imprecise and not the physics of the hammer itself. You have to use a variety of arm, wrist, and hand movements to get the exact subtleties of volume and note spacing correct.
To add to this, useful compression algorithms exploit patterns in the input data. A common pattern to target is repetition, since most files contain lots of repeated byte sequences.
The pattern that factorization targets are numbers that factor well. I doubt this is a pattern you’d find in any file worth compressing, it doesn’t have a clear relationship to file data.
Calling them letters is a little misleading. There’s 6 dots per character, which gets you a total of 64 possible characters, including spaces. 250 is probably counting all the multi-character contractions and abbreviations.
These cheat sheets do a really good job of condensing the whole system into one page:
But yes, choosing ".NET" as the new name was a bad idea, since now when someone says .NET you have no idea if they are referring to the modern runtime, or its various generations collectively.
reply