Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upHorrible Branding - Don't Call it ASP.NET 5 MVC 6 #316
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Although not like the suggestion "Blaze", I agree with @flashtopia. With so many changes in the stack, imagine the difficulty in researching solutions on the internet. Things will blend between the new version and old version with similar names. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I think we have 2 things here... one is ASP.NET 5 (The core), other is the MVC implementation that ASP.NET does, which is called MVC 6 (Version 6). I do not agree to call everything as ASP.NET MVC, IMHO I liked to use WebAPI name. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I think what you are looking for is : http://www.microsoftvirtualacademy.com/training-courses/what-s-new-with-asp-net-5 There is plenty of information regarding the latest ASP.NET stack. But it should be noted that your post reads, ASP.NET 6 MVC 5, which the version numbers are backwards. Technically, and what you'll find once you dig deeper into the latest information on ASP.NET is that, ASP.NET 5 includes (or will include) everything from front to back and reverse of the web stack.. HTH |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I prefer the name "katana". Furthermore, this justifies 'k' command |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@edrohler Thank you for the links. They are very useful, and once you get your head around that vNext is ASP.NET 5, and MVC 6 is the version of mvc that runs on it then you are good to go. But the links prove my point of the marketing Nightmare MSFT has created. Its just too confusing, specially from someone coming over from a different language such as Rails, Cold Fusion, or others. @yanjustino Katana sounds even better (in fact it sounds GREAT). Blaze was just a stupid name I came up with off the top of my head. My point was that the whole thing needs a re-brand. MSFT made a dumb mistake by branding ASP.NET Web Pages, which if you google search for you will have a very difficult time finding material on ASP.NET web Pages versus how to create pages with ASP.NET. With the version numbers getting confusing as @andrebaltieri pointed out, naming it something like:
Would make so much sense. Couple that with Migration Paths for existing developers: |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Guys. katana is a codename. It was being used since they introduced Owin. Thanks |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I agree with the confusion, we have a many versions but they have a long history. I can't call this things from another name, the numbers are sequential, You'll need keep it in mind. I don't think is so hard to search ASP.NET 5, MVC 6 (now we have MVC, WebAPI and WebPages) in a single framework called MVC 6 (that is awesome). I think it is sufficient, we need exercise the new names. That's the way. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@EduardoPires . Maybe if MSFT would have called it just MVC 6 instead of ASP.net 5, MVC 6 we would be okay. Still that would not be smart branding since as you stated MVC 6 is not only MVC but also Web API / WebPages and MVC. I try to look at this from a new comer perspective. To put it simply. IT SUCKS! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Giving the name MVC 6 to entire ASP.NET is a mistake, ASP.NET is much more than MVC 6... Despite the confusion that can happen I still think this set of names is the better choice. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I think it's pretty simple, but maybe I'm mistaken (?)
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@Bartmax ASP.NET 5 is not regular dot net anymore, so its not correct to put WPF under it. It can run on .NET, or it can run without it (al a carte). Also i dont think web forms are supported. In the old days, when I was learning Classic ASP 3, you had a clear understanding of Microsoft technologies and a learning path. Now its a spiders nest at best. the ASP.net website is a good resource, but the branding is HORRIBLE. My Suggestion was something like this: Microsoft KATANA 1.0 Each of the above could have templates to get you started: I dont care what they call it. Just start with a new brand name. And from now on lets just keep the version numbers in sync. So if we go to Katana 2 everything gets upgraded to 2 also. Some can be major changes, some minor. Just makes things so much smoother from a manager perspective. I also suggested that once microsoft makes the branding approachable that they invest a few thousand dollars hiring experts to write guides on migrating languages. PHP > Katana Web Pages 1 and finally Microsoft gets a bad reputation of being a money hungry business, but I dont see others giving out BizSpark memberships. Its time microsoft demanded market share from inferior products with have at best SublimeText as their only tooling. I am sure with the right branding, tactics, training and so on MSFT could get a strong majority of PHP developers to jump ship and get on the MSFT train. We deserve better |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@villanus ASP.NET != .NET |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@Bartmax exactly. Now more than ever since ASP.NET doesnt require the full .net framework. Thus is why the naming is stupid, and the version numbers dont make sense. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
K is sucks! Now you will spend many many more time to deploy, build your asp application. Furthermore it currently not working. Generally Gents from ms in vs 2015 ctp 6 fails with this release. So many things now not woking there... |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@vanluke its still in beta. The one thing I love about the idea of the new Katana stack is the ability to ditch IIS and build self hosted applications. This opens up a world of opportunities where you could build applications which include their own Web Server, and then wrap CEF or Webkit and you have your own desktop applicaiton written in ASP, HTML and JS. That is cool! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
The naming is confusing even to experienced ASP.NET developers: |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
its never too late to rebrand |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Hi everyone, we appreciate the feedback and understand there are cases with confusion, but we have no plans to change the branding. Remember that if we completely change the branding to something entirely different, that will also cause a lot of confusion. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I totally agree that these version numbers are really confusing. The ASP.NET Identity version 2.x, 3.0 and so on.. I think the confusion is not only for new comers and even for developers. I was developing enterprise application since last 3 years. I am using VS2010 and ASP.NET MVC 4. Things have changed so much now like it is confusing a lot. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Why am I under the impression that ASP.NET 5 has already an underlying brand? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
be come more confusion. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
as usual apple ears msfts lunch because they understand branding. and then could have suffixed it based on the framework it runs on. lastly all this gulp, bower, docker, nonsense is a real step backwards. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@villanus, how is gulp, grunt, bower, npm, etc. a step backwards? Finally asp.net developers are using many of the tools that have become standard throughout the rest of the web industry. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Microsoft didn't call them that. That's just what they're called. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
ASP.NET 5 will not contain WebForms. I'm not sure if we're making a single page application template right now /cc @DamianEdwards @SteveSandersonMS |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@SteveSandersonMS is working on some of the future of SPA. You can see some of the prototype work here: https://github.com/aspnet/NodeServices |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@rdefreitas Just because everyone is using them doesnt make it a smart move. Bower = JUNK! Equivilent of doing a git pull with a shell script. Worst part about bower is it uses github repos. Meaning you are depending on the managers of the GitHub repo. It sounds great, but having the latest / greatest of a library is not always the best practice. Grunt / Gulp - These are usually going to be run for tasks such as bundling and minification. Didnt we have this with the Bundling and Minification framework which was FAR MORE ELEGANT! They should have built on that with official SASS, LESS and JSX support. Bundling Server Side has huge advantages. Just deploy your project, and let it bundle on first use. Also, for this Compile on refresh. YAY! Too bad we have had that already. Just need to code on an IIS directly and it will compile on first run (meaning dont use the Visual Studio Web server). The only positive development of VNEXT is that MVC, Web Pages, and Web API all run under a single unified system. The rest about the multiple .Net frameworks and coding on a mac sounds like a waste of time. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
WHen is the ETA on Web Pages? If Microsoft really wants to sell ASP.net they need to support Web Pages heavily and also have the option to use Server Side Javascript (without node) and Python as official languages of ASP.net. C# has a huge learning curve. Also throw PHP syntax in the bag too! That would be great to have PHP running through Native ASP.net without the need for CGI |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
VICTORY!!!!!!! sounds so lean and sexy! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
So now its time to think about logo / branding. The ASP.NET need some logo. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I would be happy with being able to develop the ASP.NET 5 WebAPI and have it run on IIS 10 without spending half a day searching workarounds... Jesus!!! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
@joelercoaster If you are using ASP.NET 5/Core, you are currently living on the bleeding edge. That's what betas,RCs are for. Yes you can use them in production but it's still a moving target. |
This change should hopefully end the MSBuild craziness that happens when you add a file to the project using the VS Add Item dialog. VS apparently has a behavior that intentionally tries to make sure the added file is only included in a single itemgroup. So when Blazor defines an itemgroup at the top level of scope with the same members as Content - VS does some gymnastics to prevent it working. The workaround is to defer the initialization of our itemgroup.
First we had ASP classic, then asp.net which soon became web forms. After that came MVC and Web Pages. Web pages had the dumbest branding of all, try searching for ASP.net Web Pages and you will know what I mean. Impossible to find any resources with the exception of W3schools and mikesdot netting. Web Pages should have been callled "Razor Pages" or something less vauge.
Now we have ASP.net 5 (VNext) running MVC 6? WTF?
Can you imagine how difficult it will be a new comer from Python, JS or Ruby stack to even understand the hornets nest Microsoft Has Created.
Please take this opportunity to re-brand the whole MS Server side stack since we this is a as big of a change as going from ASP classic (vbscript /jscript) to ASP.net. I cannot tell you how many developers I run into (who are not on the microsft stack who cant get their heads around ASP because of the mess microsoft has made with their branding.
Something like this would be optimal.
It would also be killer if Microsoft Finally started created Roadmaps to go from current language to new .net Stack. For Example.
Going from ASP Classic > ASP.NET 6 (what I called blaze above)
Going from PHP > ....
Going from ColdFusion > ....
Going from JSP to >
Going from Rails >
Going from DJango >
Microsoft has the better stack. Azure rocks specially with the awesome BizSpark deal. IIS runs almost anything. Visual Studio is technically free if you are not a 1m company. Yet MSFT gets a horrible reputation with developers because of complexity. Im sick of seeing Ruby, Python, Php developers on their MacBooks thinking MSFT stack is too complex, too weak, too top heavy, and too confusing to get started with.
Please Rebrand.
Or hire someone from Apple who understands branding more than anything else to help you guys out.