> I hope this churn in .NET builds is temporary because a lot of people might be looking to go back to something stable especially after the recent supply chain attacks on the Node ecosystem.

Can you elaborate a bit? This article talks about internal machinery of building .net releases. What does that have to do with "this churn", whatever that is?

▲

a1o 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My guess is if you build with .NET Framework you can just forever run your builds, but if your source code is based on newer .NET you have to update to a new version each year, and deal with all the work in upgrading your entire project, which also means everyone in your team is also upgrading their dev environment, and now you have new things in the language and the runtime to deal with, deprecation and all that. Plus lots of packages don’t update as fast when version changes occurs, so chances are you will probably take more work and use as few dependencies as possible if at all, which may cause a lot of work. Instead it’s best to, if you need to depend on something, to be a very big Swiss Army knife like thing.

I think node is just more flexible and unless .NET Framework like forever releases or much longer term support make a come back, there’s no good trade off from node, since you don’t even get more stability.

▲

gregmac 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> if your source code is based on newer .NET you have to update to a new version each year

.NET has a really refreshingly sane release life cycle, similar to nodejs:

- There's a new major release every year (in November)

- Even numbers are LTS releases, and get 3 years of support/patches

- Odd numbers get 18 months of support/patches

This means if you target LTS, you have 2 years of support before the next LTS, and a full year overlap where both are supported. If you upgrade every release, you have at least 6 months of overlap

There's very few breaking changes between releases anyway, and it's often in infrastructure stuff (config, startup, project structure) as opposed to actual application code.

	▲	wolpoli 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Odd numbers get 18 months of support/patches The recently fixed the friction with odd number releases by providing 24 months of support.
	▲	fijiaarone 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Ah, but if you use node.js you get breaking changes every other day from dependencies on dependencies you didn’t even know you had.

▲

Krutonium 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it's important to remember that Dotnet projects can use code built for older releases; to an almost absurd degree, and if you don't go to before the .NET Framework divide, you largely don't even need to change anything to move projects to newer frameworks. They largely just work.

The .Net platform is honestly the most stable it has ever been.

▲

zmj 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Recent experience report: I updated four of my team's five owned microservices to .net 10 over the past two weeks. All were previously on .net 8 or 9. The update was smooth: for the .net 9 services, I only had to update our base container images and the csproj target frameworks. For the .net 8 services, I also had to update the Mvc.Testing reference in their integration tests.

It's hard for me to imagine a version increment being much easier than this.

	▲	qingcharles an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm currently migrating dozens of projects to .NET 10. All of them so far were basically one line changes and a recompile. You should be able to go from .NET 6->10 without almost any changes at all.

▲

oaiey 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

.NET Framework had back then, when it was not in frozen state as it is now, every release a list of breaking changes. Modern .NET breaking changes are not worth talking about. Keeping up with the state of the art however is more interesting... But that is needed to be a solution for today and to stay relevant.

▲

acedTrex 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The past three years of dotnet upgrades have been completely painless for me.

▲

neonsunset 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Note how practitioners of .NET praise it and non-practitioners (users of .NET Framework) criticize it.

	▲	oaiey 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Or users of other programming tool chains.

▲

da_chicken 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean? The .Net ecosystem has been generalized chaos for the past 10 years.

A few years ago even most people actively working in .Net development couldn't tell what the hell was going on. It's better now. I distinctly recall when .Net Framework v4.8 had been released and a few months later .Net Core 3.0 came out and they announced that .Net Standard 2.0 was going to be the last version of that. Nobody had any idea what anything was.

.Net 5 helped a lot. Even then, MS has been releasing new versions of .Net at a breakneck pace. We're on .Net 10, and .Net Core 1.0 was 9 years ago. There's literally been a major version release every year for almost a decade. This is for a standard software framework! v10 is an LTS version of a software framework with all of 3 years of support. Yeah, it's only supported until 2028, and that's the LTS version.

▲

Rohansi 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The only chaos occurred in the transition from .NET Framework to .NET (Core). Upgrading .NET versions is mostly painless now because the breaking changes tend to only affect very specific cases. Should take a few minutes to upgrade for most people.

	▲	pjmlp 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except it is a bummer when one happens to have such specific cases. It never takes a few minutes in big corp, everything has to be validated, the CI/CD pipelines updated, and now with .NET 10, IT has to clear permission to install VS 2026.