[a1o]

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]

> 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.

[fijiaarone]

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.

[wolpoli]

> Odd numbers get 18 months of support/patches

The recently fixed the friction with odd number releases by providing 24 months of support.

[Krutonium]

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.

[tracker1]

Going from Core 1 to 2 then 3 had a lot of rough edges, but since then it's been pretty painless.

[zmj]

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]

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.

[acedTrex]

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

[oaiey]

.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.

[neonsunset]

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

[oaiey]

Or users of other programming tool chains.