Talk:.NET Framework

Obsolescence section is inaccurate and should probably be removed

ASP.NET is a server-side language. HTML5 is a specification for markup that is generated by a server-side language and presented to the web browser. HTML5 is incapable of directly accessing database / etc that you would need server-side code to do. The entire section is basically inaccurate FUD being spread to attempt to undermine windows 8.

Remember when windows 7 was going to leave developers out in the cold too? It went on to annihilate all prior sales records that MS had.

Also, mono / .NET on linux isn't ceasing, it's right here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xamarin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniperfox (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary for my home computer?

As per many questions and criticisms here and on the Web, I added a paragraph: added to lede: Is this program necessary for my home computer? Seemingly it is not, with exceptions noted. Here is my addition:

Does the average computer user need it? For most non-programmers .Net with it's many megabytes of critical security updates are completely unnecessary on the average home computer -- unless one wants to run .Net code written in programming languages like C#, or chooses certain uncommon plugins, aps, or other software. If a program you have installed was built using .Net Framework, and you uninstall .Net Framework, that program will stop working.

Looking around, it seems obvious from Micrsoft's subtle wording and implications that they want us to think .Net is (or soon will be) needed, and therefore this conclusion will not be appreciated by Microsoft's warriors. If so it may need further defense, evidence and references.
--68.127.87.211 (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

References

I don't know why you're making this into a Microsoft issue. It's the same as, say, Java or Flash: you need it if you are running applications that use it. Most of them will come with the appropriate installer/setup program anyway, so end users do not need to think about it. 86.164.200.121 (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

".NET Fx"

I tried to add a mention to the .NET Framework being also called "NET Fx", and I got reverted saying that "NET Fx" stands for ".NET Framework Extension", which I don't think is the case, and everyone on this talk page (do a search for "fx" on this page) seems to agree it is not. Also, installers for the .NET Framework have always been called "dotnetfx.exe", so that's gotta be something. This said, I think a mention is in order. Especially since "netfx" and other similar terms redirect here, but once you get here the term is nowhere to be seen. --uKER (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I really don't mind looking into this issue. Would you let us see your source, please? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I never knew a source was required for an informal name. The best I can give is Google inferring them as synonyms. Here's a demonstration of that. --uKER (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Well, correct me if I am wrong but this specific contribution is now challenged. As for your Google results, I am sorry, these results are sketchy at best. When I trace them, they end up in dead end. Anyway, what do you suggest we do? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean it as a reliable source. Just a pragmatic demonstration that vox populi considers "NET FX" to be a synonymous of ".NET Framework". --uKER (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. I am sorry to hear that. Well, I am not going to run a whole argument on the many varying problems with your attempt because I am your Wikipedia friend, not a TV myth buster. What I want to know, however, is: What do you suggest we do. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. Maybe mention it's unofficially called "NET Fx"? My problem is, it doesn't make any sense that "netfx" redirects here if there's no mention here of what "netfx" is. --uKER (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

C'mon, we could easily add in a line saying that the downloads for the NET framework are labelled "Net Fx", and that it means "Net Framework Extension" and link to the download page of the NET framework 1, 2. -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 03:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I do not rule out that we can mention that the setup file of .NET Framework runtime for desktop has "dotnetfx" in its name. But any other synthesis of this fact without a source is not right. Especially, I do not agree that is unofficially called NET Fx. By the way: Other .NET Framework installation files like .NET Framework Compact and .NET Framework SDK do not show this pattern. All the more reason to be careful. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticisms are either unattributed or unsourced or are not specific to .NET, but are general drawbacks of intermediate runtime code. It should be replaced with a reception section listing industry reception, both positive and negative. Karpouzi (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

how to restore the calender event using webparts in vb.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyeugeneraj (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The flag for criticism consisting of drawbacks of .NET's Halt & Sweep garbage collection should be removed, which I will do. This is a characteristic of H&S Garbage collection, and visa-vie languages like C, C++ and other unmanaged (or mismanaged, depending on your point of view) code, is an important attribute of anything running in a .NET environment. The criticism is valid, even if it's not unique to .NET.

It's especially important to point this out as MSFT and it's writers go to great lengths to paint C/C++ etc. as scary rouge code that's running around loose wildly out of control putting your entire organization at great risk. If real programmers who've been managing their own memory for decades and using tools like ValGrind to verify that they have no memory leaks then the world needs to know that effort has a benefit, specifically, no Halt & Sweep memory management. Sorry MSFT, your software isn't above criticism any more than JAVA or any other managed environment.

To be fair, there are advantages to managed code for applications like SOA and SAAS. Both, and a general discussion of garbage collection should be expanded elsewhere. --Solidpoint (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Which Runs On which Windows OS

1. I see a box saying which version was shipped with which Microsoft OS. Though have read that XP SP3 installs .NET or some componments to run a early .NET software maybe 1.0 or 1.1 (maybe someone could find this out and add it)

2. More important since I came here looking for this answer and why I write here.

What OS can run what versions. Microsoft XP can run all up to and including .NET 4.0 this is known by some people but not for .NET 4.5

Needed is another box added to the page to show these details because I guess most that come here look mainly for this.

87.242.160.125 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is "the," as in "the .NET Framework" consistently omitted?

Is there some rule of grammar that calls for omitting "the"? 76.121.0.141 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

Yes, there is a grammar rule, taught in most elementary schools: Definite nouns and proper names do not take definite article; they are already definite. (There are exceptions, such as The Hague.) Microsoft pages inconsistently use "the .NET Framework" and ".NET Framework". Well, I guess Microsoft must not abandon writing documentation pages to underpaid Chinese secretaries. For more info, see WP:THE.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Codename Lisa,

WP:THE is about article naming conventions. It does not discuss definite articles in complete sentences. In general, proper names do not take the definite article. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Two of the exceptions where one should use the definite article before a proper noun are: 1) names composed of common and proper nouns and 2) names of theories, effects, devices, scales, and so on modified by a proper noun used as an adjective. See Yale Graduate School notes on definite article usage

".Net Framework" falls into both of these categories, so it should be proceeded by the definite article when it is used in a sentence, although it should not be proceeded by the definite article in the article name per WP:THE.

108.4.57.126 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First, if the rule #1 the you said was correct about composite proper nouns, we should have had written "the Microsoft Word", "the Microsoft Office", "the Symantec Antivirus", "the Kaspersky Internet Security", etc. Even some of the examples of that paper fail to comply with this rule; e.g. "Yale University" should have been "the Yale University" which the said paper explicit forbids. And, no I don't see how .NET Framework would fall into the second category. And while you seem oblivious to these easy-to-spot inconsistencies, you are quick to nitpick on my "For more info, see WP:THE", treating it as if I have said I followed WP:THE, which was an iron-clad policy.

What you are missing here, my friend, is context (which is why I sent you to WP:THE). The Yale paper is just a guideline meant to help learners have a sketchy idea of when to use definite article and when not. In Wikipedia we apply common sense to guidelines and follow consensus through editing policy. In keeping up with the latter, we do not add definite article to full names of computer software; e.g. there are no such things as "the iTunes", "the TuneUp Utilities", "the Ground Control", "the Devil May Cry". (But we do have "the Disk Doctor" or "the Office", which are ambiguous.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: It should be pointed out that the Yale paper specifically addresses University names as examples when NOT to use "the", with some exceptions:

• Names of Universities: Yale University, Columbia University, Oxford University

Exception (of-forms): the University of Michigan, the University of Hawaii

The problem is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to software names. Codename Lisa is correct that more often than not, "the" isn't needed and shouldn't be used as demonstrated in the examples she gave. However, in this specific case, it makes grammatical sense to say "the .NET Framework" in certain contexts. For example, "Microsoft added an update to the .NET Framework" would be appropriate. However, if you were to change things around putting the proper noun at the beginning of a sentence, it might make better sense to omit the article as shown in this example: ".NET Framework received an update from Microsoft". A variety of factors can influence when it's appropriate including sentence structure, context, and the way the proper noun is used in reliable sources, which if you ask me is probably the most important. We have a similar discussion taking place at the Wii U article's talk page, albeit in regards to the name of a hardware product as opposed to software. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

First, I am afraid your examples are not rule-based. (They strike me as wishy-washy.) I can certainly create a sentence in which "the .NET framework" is a perfectly valid construct but then changing the sentence from active voice to passive voice does not change that. For example, in a paragraph, when I am talking about a certain version of .NET Framework, by the virtue of metonymy, I can either say "Microsoft released an update for the .NET Framework" or "The .NET Framework received an update". However, this is an example of bad writing. It is better to write "Microsoft released an update for the Framework". ("F" can be small too.) An even better form is "Microsoft released an update." In appropriate writing, ".NET Framework" should only be used to talk about general facts that are generally correct; even then, use the full form sparringly.

Whenever you found yourself using "the .NET Framework", be prepared to be able to specify ".NET Frameworks" and "a .NET Framework" in that context.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points about active vs. passive voice, and I actually agree that changing from one to the other shouldn't change how you refer to the subject. It was a bad example on my part. Since I have very little interest with the development of this article, I want to clarify that the above is just a comment, not a position for or against its use here. I plan to continue the discussion at the Wii U talk page and stay in the scope of hardware devices. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:Rules of grammar taught in elementary school are useful for schoolchildren. However, we have English as our language of choice here, a language in which, perhaps above all others, childish rules are consistently broken. This article goes against established convention in product naming. It is also inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles about similar products (see articles on the Common Language Runtime ("the CLR"), the Virtual Execution System ("the VES"), the Common Language Infrastructure, etc. all of which use the definite article and all of which refer to "the .Net framework"). Without the definite article, this article reads as if it was written either by a non-native speaker or by somebody completely unfamiliar with the computer industry. The naming convention in use here is identical to that used for the National Football League ("the NFL"), the Football Association ("the FA"), the US Marine Corps, and countless others. The use of the definite article is appropriate because there is only one entity of that name. There is no requirement for discussion of "a .Net Framework" or "some .Net Frameworks" because there is only one .Net Framework, just as there is only one National Football League.

Respectfully,

Dettifoss (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dettifoss: I have a Masters degree in English Translation Theory from collage and have written a Featured Article, so I do know the difference between school grammar, university grammar and Wikipedia-approved grammar: The difference is minute and putting a definite article before a proper noun is not one of them.

"Nation football league" and "US marine corps" are not definite. Any nation can have several "football leagues" that are "national". Same goes for "marine corps" that come from "U.S.". When "the" is used to make "the U.S. Marine Corps" and "the National Football League", it is the same as my "the Framework" example above. But there can only be one and one ".NET Framework", without ambiguity. (Trade laws mandate it.) Therefore, it is definite.

In addition, experience in both Wikipedia and real life has shown me that attempt to justify a wrong action out of stubbornness is not restricted to children; in fact, it is very much a grown-up thing. I would let you know that such underhand tactics as branding stuff as "for children, not for grown-ups" does not work on neither me nor any other veteran editor. (School books are scientific attempts to teach essential and correct knowledge that one needs for life; they are by no means "childish". Quite to the contrary, he who doesn't know their teaching is the subject of ridicule.) Dispute is Wikipedia are full of people who try to downplay something by branding it. My friendly advice is: You made a mistake, I fixed it; if you move on, don't repeat it and let it be forgotten, you'll live happily ever after. Otherwise, you will waste a lot of time.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: There remains the issue that this page stands alone, or as a very rare example, in the Wikipedia canon. We may agree that none of the Wikipedia pages I referred to above should include the definite article when describing their subject, and yet they do. "National Football League" is the name of a commercial entity, as mandated by trade laws, and is therefore definite, yet the Wikipedia page describing it refers unfailingly to "the National Football League". In all these examples, Wikipedia both follows common parlance and is internally consistent. It is this page which stands out. If this page is the standard, how shall we go about correcting all the others?

I believe you put your finger on the problem when you corrected my example regarding the U.S. Marine Corps. Just as it is possible for there to be any number of marine corps, with that of the U.S. being but a single example, it is possible for there to be - in fact there are - any number of software frameworks, with the .NET Framework being but a single example. ".NET" is a proper name, just like "Microsoft" or "Barbara", and is therefore definite. The .NET Framework is the name of a software framework built around .NET.

FWIW I am a published Computer Scientist of over thirty years standing etc. etc. etc. These things are not important to me because they are unverifiable in this context, as are your claims regarding your own "erudition".

My best,

Dettifoss (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't know "National Football League" was a trademark. (Are you sure?) In our country we have several of them. (I mean national leagues of football.) Anyway, it is not obvious from the name that it is definite. But no, we cannot have several ".NET Framework"; "Framework" yes, ".NET Framework" no.

As for going beyond the scope of this article, "other stuff exists" argument doesn't automatically establish a precedence. Most of the times, other stuff shouldn't exist either. It goes like this: "Other articles don't use slashes at all." Well, it is good; WP:SLASH says they shouldn't. "Other articles say 'x86' instead of 'IA-32', or 'GNU/Linux' instead of 'Linux'." Well, they shouldn't; MOS:COMPUTING says so. I'll probably take a look at the other articles too but not today.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa and Dettifoss: Okay, let's take a look at the precedent: When I was writing TuneUp Utilities article for GA, I was asked to use "the" before e.g. "Disk Doctor" but not "TuneUp Disk Doctor". How do general literature (Microsoft or others) write .NET Framework? What about similar names? Is "Java Runtime Environment" written with "the" or without "the"? What about "Internet Information Services"? Or "Application Verifier"? Is there a resource that collects all these instances? e.g. a corpus of computing? And do you need me to cite policies and guidelines as to how effective these factors are? Fleet Command (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Trying to pin down the National Football League is quite a tricky exercise. If you look at their website, nfl.com, the base of each page carries the following copyright assertion: "© 2015 NFL Enterprises LLC. NFL and the NFL shield design are registered trademarks of the National Football League.The team names, logos and uniform designs are registered trademarks of the teams indicated. All other NFL-related trademarks are trademarks of the National Football League." So the National Football League is an entity which owns trademarks. There is also a page for businesses to apply to use these marks here: https://www.nfl.info/nflconsprod/welcome/cpAgreement.htm (be warned I got a security warning about this page). Finally, the Wikipedia article on the National Football League states "The National Football League is an unincorporated nonprofit 501(c)(6) association,[28] meaning its league office is not subject to income tax because it does not make a profit." So from what I can tell (I am not a lawyer) the National Football League is the unambiguous name of an entity.

My best,

Dettifoss (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand and Codename Lisa: I am part of a US government project that collects computer software and one of the biggest problems we face is trying to construct a rational naming ontology for the software. Product names are based on marketing decisions as often as technical considerations and they are often agglomerations or repurposings of everyday words ("Internet Information Services" is a great example). Take Microsoft Windows 7. Is this version 7 of Windows ("Windows" has been around in one form or another since the early 1990s)? If so, where is Windows 6 - there is no such thing. So "Windows 7" is a proper noun. Then what about the various "editions"? We decided to classify "Windows 7 Professional" and "Windows 7 Ultimate" as two different proper nouns, even though as software professionals we were fully aware that the contents of the distribution disks were more or less identical. And no - as far as I know there is no centralized reference or "corpus of computing" that would address this issue: Wikipedia is as close as it gets.

In general, though, I think I agree with Codename Lisa: the common sense of linguistic rules prevails. To look at your examples, "the Internet Information Services" is not used: all three words are clearly part of a compound proper noun because they are plural and yet refer to a single entity (it's Microsoft's web server). Similarly for "TuneUp Utilities". The Java Runtime Environment is an example of a runtime environment which uses Java and so requires the definite article, just as I explained for the .NET Framework. "Disk Doctor" is not literally a doctor for disks, so it must be a compound proper noun and thus definite.

Which brings me back to the .NET Framework. My reading of Codename Lisa's last remark, above, is that while "framework" is not a proper noun, ".NET Framework" is because there is only one ".NET Framework" and it is thus inherently definite (i.e. no "the" allowed). I started thinking about bridges. There are many bridges, but only one Golden Gate Bridge. Does this mean it is incorrect to refer to "the Golden Gate Bridge"? Similarly with buildings. Is it incorrect to refer to "the Empire State Building"? If so, why? I believe I understand your logic, but there has to be something I'm missing.

My best,

Dettifoss (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Dettifoss, "golden", "gate", "bridge", "empire", "state" and "building" are like "framework"; you can find them in dictionary. But ".NET" is, I daresay, unique. But here is a catch: You've probably heard about descriptive grammar, right? "Me and my family went" is grammatically correct because precedent, as opposed to rule, says so. But then, precedent cannot be extended; i.e. "him and his family went" is incorrect. Same goes for things that take "the" because of precedent, e.g. The Hague does not endorse writing The Redmond.

But I guess FC is right here: If the world in general says The .NET, I have no rights to oppose.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:One small clarification. We have been discussing the phrase "the .NET Framework". General use for the term ".NET" is ".NET", not "the .NET". ".NET" is a proper noun. The contention here has been over whether "the .NET Framework" is a proper noun, which it is not - again, according to general use.

Example 1: "I use .NET for all my software development."

Example 2: "I use the .NET Framework for all my software development."

My best,

Dettifoss (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There is no individual thing called ".NET". (There is the "net" domain which is often written as ".net" for clarification but that's the true complex noun, and indefinite to boot.) Microsoft once had a marketing campaign that added XP to everything and so it had Windows XP and Office XP but we don't have anything called "XP". A similar failed campaign involved Microsoft adding ".NET" to everything like .NET Passport, Windows .NET Server. ASP.NET, ADO.NET, etc. but that failed exactly for the same technical reason that your first example is wrong: Nobody could conceive what could ".NET" alone be.

You would realize why your second example is wrong when you replace "Framework" with "Passport" and "software development" with "Internet account". In a way, you are appealing to "the Windows operating system" construct; except there is such thing as "Windows" alone but there is no such thing as ".NET". That's why Microsoft Press keeps writing "Active Directory directory service". (Why is it not "the Active Directory directory service" again?[1]) Going by this rule "the .NET Framework software framework" is right. If .NET was the name of a framework however, it would have been correct to write "the .NET framework" (small "f".)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: My final question. I would like to revert the article so that it contains my original edits (the addition of several definite articles) but I do not fully understand the etiquette: should I do so myself or should I ask you to do it? Are you satisfied that the issue is resolved?

My best,

Dettifoss (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The etiquette in Wikipedia is: Wikipedia:Consensus. An editor who knows that his edit lacks consensus must refrain from engaging in further editing in that regard until consensus changes. WP:BRD is also a very popular guideline which is applicable here. You might like to ask for FleetCommand to give a direct verdict here (mind you, he is the writer of MOS:COMPUTING) but I'd say there is no majority opinion here, let alone consensus. So, if you wish to continue pressing your position (for the lack of a better word), WP:DR is the way to go.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Dettifoss and Codename Lisa both say there is no precedent. And "the" adds no new meaning. So there is neither rule nor use. I say get rid of it. Fleet Command (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Guess I'll jump back into the fray! When a grammatical rule alone cannot be established or agreed upon by various editors, the norm would be to look at how the topic is referred to in a majority of reliable sources. I didn't have to dig very far on Google and especially Microsoft's site to find that more often than not, the definite article the precedes .Net Framework. Whether or not that's grammatically correct is a moot point, since clearly it has been widely adopted in available literature. So unless it can be shown otherwise, I don't see any reason why the definite article can't be used. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me further clarify, since I have a good idea what the reaction is going to be. I have not verified that a majority of sources use the definite article. It is just my opinion based on what I've seen. Further confirmation is certainly needed. Also, many proper names have exceptions to the basic rules concerning the use of definite articles. How do we know when such an exception exists? Certainly we don't pull that out of thin air! We know from looking at published literature when an exception has been widely accepted. All I'm suggesting is that for topics on Wikipedia where there is an obvious contention, we should let the objective viewpoint lie in reliable sources and not personal opinions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I mean no offense but when people "jump back into the fray", they look a bit the opposite of intelligent. Not because what they say is wrong but because their absolute lack of knowledge about what is said so far and the contrast between the ground they are trying to cover as opposed to ground already cover makes them sound like –

It doesn't look good. Fleet Command (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Saying you mean no offense before proceeding to offend someone is both patronizing and a waste of time. If you'd like to comment specifically on anything I've said, feel free. If you'd like to preach from your perch about why your insight into this discussion is superior, don't bother. The scroll bar works on my screen too. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I am sorry, but look, when I say "I mean no offense" it is because I am concerned that the ambiguity in my comment might be miscontrued as offensive, patronizing or juvenile. (Take the opposite case: When I do want to offend, I say "drop dead punk", never "I mean no offense, but drop dead punk". The brain of the offender doesn't work that way; an offender is in a hurry to hurt with words and the first five words plus the pause is an unacceptable delay.)

But I am going to talk more frankly this time: If you indeed wish to contribution to a discussion, you should be concerned about the significance of what you say because if it turns out irrelevant, it is neither helpful, nor consensus-building. You'd be wasting both your time and ours. Fleet Command (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me stop you right there. The warnings are unnecessary. "You should be concerned about the significance of what you say" is completely inappropriate and condescending. If you want to directly address my earlier comments and continue the discussion, please do so. If you don't want to directly address them, then feel free to bow out. This ongoing sidebar is distracting.

P.S.>> You may want to change your status on your user page. It still says you're retired. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God! I agree with this person and want to be polite to him; and he totally gets it the other way around. What's the matter with the world? Fleet Command (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to attribute your little miscommunication with GoneIn60 to something being wrong with the world. I can see a clear awkward attempt in being polite and a denial of any intention of rudeness. So, you've done your best and I'd assume good faith in you if I were him. Nevertheless, GoneIn60's point of view is already accepted by all four of us; all that remains is the actual proof of a global and widespread use of "the" before ".NET Framework" and the proof that it is in fact accepted use, not a typo like "pron", which is used quite deliberately but is accepted as a typo. Wikipedia already forfeits globally accepted practices because of their inefficiency.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions to Improve The Main Article

Trying to edit the embedded template is the most horrible eXPerience to me on Wikipedia.org English and I have been blocked for 24 hours. People argued, accused, reverted ... and even reported me. What such an amazing experience to know so many funny buddies here and I learned a lot meaningless things. .Net Framework is a very important fundamental system software layer in enterprise computing system, and a necessary development tool, and so many people love to make their ideas alive with it. But if supporting information on Architecture, ISA (Instruction Set Architecture, such as IA-32, x86-64 et cetera) I mean, could be detailed in the main article or that "wonderful" and "amazing" template, I think that would be much better. I have no attempt to call for storm, just leave it here as a suggestion without further modifiction Janagewen (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

People who are interested in my suggestion could visit my talk page, I put a draft there, wish that could help someone to improve that template... Janagewen (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

This looks like a continuation of the discussions on Template talk:.NET Framework version history. I hope the result is better this time.

As I reminded in that page, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, contributions that fail to cite a reliable source may be challenged or discarded.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that this is Wikipedia.org, and my suggestion is just for the kind people who want to use it as a reference. I have no will, time and energy to argue or something else. I just stated the fact. I wish that you , Codename Lisa, know I post just because I see it as Wikipedia.org, not several minor people here... Janagewen (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

.NET cross-platform (to what extent)?

I see the "Cross-platform software" was added (not based on Mono, but Microsoft's .NET code):

1. "open sourcing the full server-side .NET stack and expanding .NET to run on the Linux and Mac OS platforms. [..] Delivering on its promise to support cross-platform development, Microsoft is providing the full .NET server stack in open source, including ASP.NET, the .NET compiler, the .NET Core Runtime, Framework and Libraries, enabling developers to build with .NET across Windows, Mac or Linux."

2. "Visual Studio 2015 and .NET 2015: build for any device

Built from the ground up with support for iOS, Android and Windows, Visual Studio 2015 Preview makes it easier for developers to build applications and services for any device, on any platform."

1. and 2. are from the same source (and I quote all I saw relevant to non-Windows) and 2. (Visual Studio) is not about the "Core", I just notice Android and iOS, client platforms only mentioned and not Mac OS, while in 1. "server-side .NET stack".

[iOS only supports programs compiled with Xcode.] What can you do - right now - with this code? comp.arch (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Your question seems to concern the recent viral news about .NET Core becoming open-source. This post gives you a good idea what it is: [2]. As a computer user, everything you have seen of .NET so far remain proprietary, including Windows Presentation Foundation and Windows Forms. For a full list of what open-source in .NET, see www.dotnetfoundation.org/projects.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

All the software in the table such as ".NET Core/CoreFX and CoreCLR" and "Reference source code of .NET Framework 4.6", only ".NET Framework redistributable package" (and older "Reference source code of .NET Framework 4.5 and earlier") is an exception. Then it is not clear what software is added/or if to make it proprietary.

Source code can be free/open source, but when compiled, not such as with MIT (and MPL, right?) (but not GPL). Is that only the case, that they change nothing just package their "free" software and make it proprietary? Could you do without the redistributable or compile similar yourself and redistribute that?

From the redistributable": "NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS ME, WINDOWS NT 4.0 (DESKTOP EDITION), WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM, WINDOWS XP PROFESSIONAL AND/OR WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA." makes it proprietary (I didn't read further). This also forbids installing/running in Linux (under Wine) unless you also have a license for Windows you are not using. Seems strange to do this, since they explicitly want to allow Linux now, that they still do not want it free (as in speech). Is this maybe an out-dated EULA? Accessdate was similar to for the other refs.

Patents where not mentioned (would be another way to restrict MIT license), those (original ones) may have expired.. comp.arch (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

article does poor job of explaining what .NET does and why it is used

After reading the article, I still have no idea of what .NET does and why it is needed. The article seems to have been written for people who already are well versed in computer science, etc. I am not as well versed and expect a Wiki article to be written in easier to understand language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.159.255.226 (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The opening sentences have links to articles that provide all background information you need to know. For example, software framework is in the first sentence. If you don't know what that is, click on it and find out.War (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I AGREE. It's all very well for programmers and nerds to extol the virtues of these programs but nobody ever takes the time to sit down and write, for example: "the X program is needed to run programs such as johnnycatchamouse, FileYrTaxesBeforetheIRSgetsyou etc.

SO removed are these people that they have forgotten how the average, non-nerd, non-expert mind works. Let's not forget, either, that there is a degree of resentment at having constantly to fill up one's machine with "needed" (unexplained - so how does one know whether it is) programs and updates. A lot of people did not ask to have a computer but are more or less required to own one now because of the degree to which computing has infected the society.

And one more thing, War, you sound rather dismissive to the previous commenter. As far as I am concerned, an encyclopedia entry that provides information not only to other (semi- or pseudo-) experts but also to non-experts and people only vaguely familiar with the terminology of the field should not require endless links to other pages. Frankly, much of computing has the aura of a rush job, requiring endless patches. 184.148.107.43 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. It is impossible to make a make a bachelor of science out of an illiterate person with just one article.

FYI, in case of this article, a person with knowledge of computer science is as good as a carpenter in understand the topic, because it is a software engineering article. Computer science is all about math and theories. Those in the field of computer science do not even need to know how to turn a computer on or off. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

FCL vs BCL

In the article the relation between the Base Class Library and the Framework Class Library is described: "BCL is a superset of FCL", meaning that the BCL contains the FCL, right? In another wiki, on the page on the FCL, this relationship is inverted: "The Base Class Library (BCL) is the core of the FCL", meaning that the FCL contains the BCL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Class_Library

So.. which one is it? 2A02:1810:9C29:9B00:707E:5B:99A7:E6AA (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is resolved already. Do not know the practice, should this paragraph be removed then? --Oaiey (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

License: Open-source or not?

Hi.

The title of this message is more a rhetorical question for complain than an actual question.

So, Microsoft announces plans to make .NET Framework open-source and starts releasing some pieces under a free license. Suddenly, the editors start making things look as if they have always been either free and open-source or a mixed of non-free and FOSS. For example, revision 650997250 from 2605:6000:ef84:2f00:74cb:5d3c:6ce:c358 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) goes as far as suggesting that .NET Framework source code has been under MIT License for a long time. Even the edit summary reads: " reference source has been MIT-licensed for a while now, as already mentioned". But the adjacent sources say not such thing and when I navigate to referencesource.microsoft.com and click on its "License" button, I see that the claim is outright wrong: The license is still "MS-RSL". One hour of search of actually yielded this: [3]

So, the next time you wanted to add something that say "it is open-source" or "it has been open-source for a while now", could you please do us a favor and double -check your sources? Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Codename Lisa. The mentioned url (http://referencesource.microsoft.com/) is not accurate for the MIT licensed part. The actual source code dump for the .NET Framework 4.6.x licensed as MIT is placed in Github at https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource. The url http://referencesource.microsoft.com/ is a viewer to a previous code dump which was not under MIT license. Both dumps are not the same and I assume here, that the viewer contains actually the complete source code which still contains some code which is not MIT licensed while the Github dump is legal licensed MIT sub part of it. Nowadays, the .NET Framework is source open but only partially OSI approved open source (MIT since Nov 2014). --Oaiey (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Security

I would like to rename the second "Security" section to something along the lines of "Reverse Engineering", which is more accurately what this section deals with. While this is technically the "Security" of Intellectual Property, the word "Security" implies a far different meaning when discussing software platforms. Any objections? (I'll have to figure out how to do this without breaking existing anchors)

Secondly: even the first "Design tenents -> Security" section only deals with code authorization, and should probably be expanded to include a more comprehensive picture of what security entails for a platform/ecosystem as large as .Net.Galestar (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

Sorry, I didn't see this early. I merged the two sections.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Codename List:! I think you misunderstood my intention. The current reorg makes it appear as though the reverse engineer-ability (is that a word?) is a "design-tenent" of the framework, rather than an implication. I'm going to attempt a bold edit. Galestar (talk) 04:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galestar:: Actually, my name is Codename Lisa. I did not misunderstand. I do believe allowing easy decomilation is part of the design tenets. And I do not have the habit of cutting Microsoft some slacks. Even if it is a consequence of the design tenets, it still should be discussed there.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the name!

Nothing we do should be about cutting anyone some slack. We should write neutrally.

While I'm yet not entirely convinced of it going under design tenets, if you were to put it there as a consequence of a design tenant then I it belongs under the design tenet of which it is a consequence. Specifically whichever section discusses CIL - so probably Portability. Galestar (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a stroke of brilliance to think of other places, like § Portability. But it would only fit there if you have a source proving that Microsoft deliberately created this feature to contribute to something in the way of portability... or that, though unintended, it indeed has such a consequence. Overall, no. I think "Security" is better place. Reverse-engineering and obfuscation are really matters of vendor security.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If so, that brings me back to my original point re:the confusion of calling it security - the word "security" typically implies a far different meaning than the security of Intellectual Property. I posit that most people interpret security to imply the security of the user's computer, the security of the application's functions - ie authentication, authorization, vulnerabilities, sandboxing, code signing, etc. Unfortunately I can't access either of the sources for this section, so I can't defer to how they describe it. Galestar (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's blatantly wrong. What you are describing is security software, not security itself. We have software security as well as information security. The task of protecting trade secret is one of the duties of the internal security branch of every company – although large companies have counterintelligence and counterespionage – and some anti-piracy measures are called copy protection. If we were to go by your definition of security, what was already in the security section about CAS would have not fit.

But if both of you are up for a compromise, I have other suggestions too: Create a "Reverse-engineering" section right there under design tenets (I don't like this one thought) or move the disputed part into "§ Architecture §§ Assemblies". Fleet Command (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually like the latter idea (moving to "§ Architecture §§ Assemblies"). Galestar (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Galestar: So do I. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The note for .NET Framework 3.5 on Windows 8

I'm unsure why it's listed in the table as included with Windows 8.0-8.1 when it... isn't? According to the note. Is it because Windows attempts to conveniently download it if it's needed so it's ".NET 3.5 aware"? I still think these operating systems should be removed though, since I mainly see that table as a reference for developers looking for what's convenient to ship "standalone" and without needing user interaction or risking access right issues. -- — Northgrove 09:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

It is included on the Windows 8, 8.1 and 10 discs but not in the Windows itself and Windows itself conveniently disregards the possibility of a disc. And, in Wikipedia, we are not allowed to judge Windows and call it half-and-half.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting.. what discs? :) Many get only OEM versions. For those, and those of that do not have an internet connection (just shoot me now - do they exist :) they have no .NET? I know about the redistributable.. and then you can use .NET as you already have a license, except, still for free software/GPL that is not an option, as then GPL's "system software" linking exception (currently not listed at target page) does not apply. If .NET is not installed (by default I would think) it might as well not exists for GPL concerns. I'm a little surprised - I thought it was included - last used Windows when XP was most recent.. comp.arch (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Comp.arch. You've asked this question during my lengthy absence; I don't know if you are still interested in the answer or not.

"What disc?"

Any standard Windows installation image would do, be it an OEM disc, retail disc, trial ISO image downloaded from Microsoft TechNet Evaluation Center, a non-trial ISO image downloaded from Microsoft Store or MSDN Subscription Center or the content of any of the aforementioned dumped into a folder on a disk. The only installation image that won't work is a customized installation image whose author deliberately deleted the .NET Framework 3.5 files just to prove that he or she can!

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Any standard Windows installation image would do, be it an OEM disc, retail disc, trial ISO image downloaded from Microsoft TechNet Evaluation Center, a non-trial ISO image downloaded from Microsoft Store or MSDN Subscription Center or the content of any of the aforementioned dumped into a folder on a disk.

Well, we need source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.107.34 (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2015‎ (UTC)

Correction: We need a source if and when we decided to add it to the article. Right now, I am very much fine with the state of the article as it is.

Frankly, it was just a courtesy call when I answered Northgrave's or Comp.arch's off-the-record doubts. But I will not go source-hunting for something that is not even in the article. What currently is in the article is well-referenced. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please use vendor website for references where available

For References(1) 1. Thurrott, Paul. "Visual Studio 2015 Update 1 is Now Available". Thurrott. Retrieved 1 December 2015. https://www.thurrott.com/dev/62640/visual-studio-2015-update-1-is-now-available

You can use the update announcement link from Microsoft itself Visual Studio 2015 Update 1 https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/vs2015-update1-vs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2015‎ 162.247.71.66 (talk) 17:09, 1 December (UTC)

Not done. Wikipedia favors secondary source. Also Microsoft sources are less stable than vapor. They vanish as time passes. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Memory management

In this section it says: "However, this leaves chunks of free space between objects which were initially contiguous. The objects are then compacted together to make used memory contiguous again" In my humble opinion this is wrong. The objective is not to keep used memory contiguous. The object is to prevent fragmentation of the heap of free space. In order to achieve this, the objects need to be moved around in memory.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.98.65 (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Reworking the .NET Framework article ground-up

I have read the article over the years many times but now in 2016 I think it needs a big overhaul. Let me reason why:

• The .NET Framework is no longer the same as .NET. It might be the dominant implementation, but not the 2016 way of seeing it. Therefore the forwarding of ".NET" to ".NET Framework" is not correct anymore. The German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET) has already applied that change already. Also the forwarding of ".NET Core" is wrong.
• While sharing most of the base technology (CLI, IL, ...), the described different ".NET" platforms have so many different characteristics and the ".NET Framework" is just one of them that the article is a bit disorganized now (e.g. licensing table was working as long as the article just targets the ".NET Framework" but now it mismatches the ".NET Core" as a sub-part of the ".NET Framework" which is completely incorrect). This is true for many other paragraphs.
• The concept of app models is missing.
• The upcoming .NET Core introduces a complete different OS integration and makes it really cross-platform.
• The library topics ".NET Standard Library", Portable Class Library (and their problems/evolvements), NuGet Package Manager, and the "mscorlib" vs. "System.Runtime".
• The Universal Windows App topics native compilation, CoreRT runtime and Silverlight styled "Core" profile is missing.

Like said in the first point: I think the main problem is not the content but the fact that ".NET" should be an own article with the main architecture concepts with sub articles about ".NET Framework", ".NET Core", "Mono", ".Net Micro/Compact Framework", ... which further focus on the individual details.

I am eager to help but since I am not a native English speaker and Wiki Newbie I would need someone helping me a bit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaiey (talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

“ Why does humankind even bother? You wreck everything you've ever made and you start over. Like it'll be any different the next time. ” — Kadaj, Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete

@Oaiey: Allow me to give you a friendly warning: Wikipedia veterans always assume a person who says "re-write this article from the ground up" to be an idiot. (Although, they are polite and they won't say it.) And in all the cases that I have witnessed, they were right. Essentially, you must really understand the meaning of "re-write this article from the ground up" and that what a big mistake it is.

Now as for the difference between ".NET" and ".NET Framework", I have seen one blog post on the Internet that proposed this position and that blog post was wrong. It was talking dumb because it assumed its audience were dumb and things should be dumbed down for them. In Wikipedia, we simplify thing but we don't dumb them down; doing that sacrifices the accuracy and NPOV. Fleet Command (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: A appreciate the warning and understand it. As a software engineer I know this sickness, just with code instead of articles. Since I do not know the common practices, I do not change the article but first ask here. File a "issue", discuss and then propose the change (that is how to do software development in the open source world I participate in ;)). So I propose we do what I would do with code: doing it step by step to achieve a better result on the way.

To the topic: Can you please reference this blog post. According to the program management at Microsoft and the actual source code it is fair to say that .NET Core is not a component of the .NET Framework and that they are completely different animals. See the graphics on Scott Hanselman's blog post http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ASPNET5IsDeadIntroducingASPNETCore10AndNETCore10.aspx (he is a Microsoft "Principle Program Manager" for .NET) and for example the documentation of the .NET Core team (written by the guys who do the .NET Framework and .NET Core) clearly separates them as different implementations of ".NET" http://dotnet.github.io/docs/concepts/editions-overview.html. Also the build talk of the .NET Program Managers (Scott Hunter and Scott Hanselman) at https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2016/B891 clearly separate them as two implementation on minutes 5:29, 6:10 and 12:10. This is not some individuals "position", this is the official position and technical facts. You can even inspect the different code bases on http://github.com/dotnet/corefx and https://github.com/Microsoft/referencesource. Wikipedia also has sub pages for the .NET Micro and Compact Frameworks which are also different animals.

Despite your correct warning to a newbie where I am completely with you, I stay with the position: This article group (.NET/.NET Framework/.NET Core) needs a major update. What do you think! --Oaiey (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)