Windows update is how it used to work and it's terrible. An update breaks old apps, or downloads a every single version (not feasible). Who would want to run windows update to install a new app?

It's just a bad idea. Today we just pack in the DLLs and it just works.

▲

NetMageSCW 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No one suggesting using Windows Update to install new apps, they are suggesting the current .Net framework should be elevated to a first class Windows citizen and included with Windows installs and updated with Windows Update, and that seems like and obvious idea that should have been implemented when .Net Core became .Net.

▲

Rohansi 2 hours ago | parent [-]

.NET versions are not fully backwards compatible. Would you like every Windows install to ship with over ten versions of the .NET runtime?

▲

jitl an hour ago | parent | next [-]

We would like it to be good. Whichever way to achieve goodness - either be backwards compat, or ship all the stable versions, I don't care but the current situation is silly. Apple gets flack for this and that, but their UI toolkit situation is lightyears ahead; you just pick the OS version you want to target in your app build settings and it will work that way for everyone.

	▲	Rohansi 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		100 MB per runtime, for everyone, and the majority of them are out of support. Is that really the good option? Why not the option the author dismissed: a 9 MB AOT-compiled executable which doesn't need a separate runtime?

▲

biorach an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes?