As what often happens, using \ for paths is for backwards compatibility.
Neither CP/M nor MS-DOS 1.0 had folders. When folders were added in MS-DOS 2.0, the syntax had to be backwards compatible. DOS already used forward slashes for command-line options (e.g. DIR /W) so using them for folders would have been ambiguous - does that DIR command have a /W option, or is it viewing the contents of the W directory at the root of the drive? Backslashes weren’t used for anything so they used them for folders.
This is the same reason why you can’t create files with device names like con, lpt1, and so on. DOS 2.0 has to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 where you could do something like TYPE foo.txt > LPT1 to send a document to a printer. The device names are reserved globally so they can work regardless of what folder you’re in.
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Software checking the version of Windows gets “6.1” for Windows 7 and “6.2” for Windows 8. The marketing name doesn’t matter and is different.
some legacy software checked if the OS name began with “Windows 9” to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
This is a myth. Windows doesn’t even have an API to give you the marketing name of the OS. Internally, Windows 95 is version 4.0 and Windows 98 is 4.1. The API to get the version returns the major and minor version separately, so to check for Windows 95 you’d check if majorVersion = 4 and minorVersion = 0.
Maybe it’s a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the “Windows 9” substring doesn’t even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there’s no C function that returns the string, but there’s a ver command. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)
And for the same reason they went straight from 2.1 3.x to 5.0 when they renamed .Net Core to just .Net. Versions 3.x and 4.x would have been too easy to confuse (either manually or programmatically) with the old .Net Framework versions that were still in use, especially for Desktop applications.
Dotnet core 4 never existed because they wanted to make it the mainline dotnet… That means framework is retired and everything is now the slimmer multiplatform runtime.
I was about to say that most apps should check the NT number but then I remembered that until XP it wasn’t common to run a NT system, but then I remembered NT 4 existed basically in the same timeframe as 95 did, and even if the argument went to “it’s a 9x application”, shouldn’t these OSes at least have some sort of build number or different identifier systems? Because as I said NT systems were around, so they would probably need a check for that
I agree, it was mostly a joke. But as the parent commenter explained, “.net is now dot net” is still confusing. They really should just cut ties with the .net name and start fresh. “.net is now MS Interop Framework” or some such. Adopt more sane server versioning moving forward, so searching for information isn’t so wild across all the possible variations and versions of .net, dot net core, dot net framework, asp.net, etc
I have the same issue with Java. Oracle JDK, Open JDK or some other weird distribution? Enteprise Servers or a Framework like Springboot?
It’s always easier if you’re familiar with the technology.
I have no complaints about just calling it .NET. The distinction between .NET and .NET Framework isn’t much of a problem. It’s the fact that .NET and .NET Core aren’t actually different that’s odd. It underwent a name change without really being a different project, meanwhile the Framework -> Core change was actually a new project.
It underwent a name change without really being a different project
The name difference was only to differentiate the legacy .NET Framework with the new .NET Core while both were being developed concurrently. They never intended to keep the “Core” suffix forever. .NET Core had a lot of missing APIs compared to .NET Framework 4.5., and “.NET 1.0” would have been ambiguous. It was to signify that it was a new API that isn’t fully compatible yet.
Once .NET Core implemented nearly all the APIs from the legacy .NET Framework, the version numbers were no longer ambiguous (starting from .NET 5.0), and the legacy framework wasn’t used as much as it used to be, it made sense to drop the “Core” suffix :)
The reasoning it was to not confuse with .net framework 4.x series, and since they went beyond 4.x, it’s just .net now. I believe .net core moniker was to explicitly distinguish is from framework versions.
It didn’t help the confusion at all, tch. Being a .net guy since 1.0, you just figure it out eventually
Sorry, what’s .Net again?
The runtime? You mean .Net, or .Net Core, or .Net Framework? Oh, you mean a web framework in .Net. Was that Asp.Net or AspNetcore?
Remind me why we let the “Can’t call it Windows 9” company design our enterprise language?
But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.
For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with “Windows 9” to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
deleted by creator
Say whatever you want about Microsoft, but they don’t mess around with backwards compatibility.
It’s easy to be backwards compatible when you’re backwards in general.
I once heard some YouTuber say Windows uses \ in path names instead of / like everyone else because Microsoft thinks backwards.
As what often happens, using
\for paths is for backwards compatibility.Neither CP/M nor MS-DOS 1.0 had folders. When folders were added in MS-DOS 2.0, the syntax had to be backwards compatible. DOS already used forward slashes for command-line options (e.g.
DIR /W) so using them for folders would have been ambiguous - does thatDIRcommand have a/Woption, or is it viewing the contents of theWdirectory at the root of the drive? Backslashes weren’t used for anything so they used them for folders.This is the same reason why you can’t create files with device names like
con,lpt1, and so on. DOS 2.0 has to retain backwards compatibility with 1.0 where you could do something likeTYPE foo.txt > LPT1to send a document to a printer. The device names are reserved globally so they can work regardless of what folder you’re in.Well, better to be backwards with backwards compatibility than to just be backwards.
looks at Apple
They probably search for windows n(t) somewhere too ;)
But “nine” is a word that is a number
The reason they checked that it started with “Windows 9” was because it worked for “Windows 95” and “Windows 98”
An often repeated urban legend that has no basis in reality. Software checking the version of Windows gets “6.1” for Windows 7 and “6.2” for Windows 8. The marketing name doesn’t matter and is different.
This is a myth. Windows doesn’t even have an API to give you the marketing name of the OS. Internally, Windows 95 is version 4.0 and Windows 98 is 4.1. The API to get the version returns the major and minor version separately, so to check for Windows 95 you’d check if majorVersion = 4 and minorVersion = 0.
Edit: This is the return type from the API: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/winnt/ns-winnt-osversioninfoexa
Maybe it’s a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the “Windows 9” substring doesn’t even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there’s no C function that returns the string, but there’s a
vercommand. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)This doesn’t prove anything, but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring. It’s not hard to imagine that code written circa 2000 would not be future proof. https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+“\“windows+9\””&patternType=keyword&sm=0
oh
oh no
There’s code in the JDK that does that??
I really wish I didn’t see that.
Yup!! Never look under the hood in software, you’ll just be disappointed ☹️
I’ve been a software developer for 20 years and this comment is too real. Some days I’m amazed that any software even works at all.
Having worked in both food service and software, I encourage you not to visit the kitchen of any restaurants you enjoy either.
Please don’t show me how the sausage is made
And for the same reason they went straight from
2.13.x to 5.0 when they renamed .Net Core to just .Net. Versions3.x and4.x would have been too easy to confuse (either manually or programmatically) with the old .Net Framework versions that were still in use, especially for Desktop applications.Dotnet core 3.x exists
Dotnet core 4 never existed because they wanted to make it the mainline dotnet… That means framework is retired and everything is now the slimmer multiplatform runtime.
Oh yeah right, I totally forgot 3.x.
Strange argument… how does that prevent checks versus Windows 7, 8 and 1* all of which would be less than 9.
Because it checks if the version starts with the string “Windows 9*”, not wether the number is less than 9.
This is a myth - code that checks the version number uses the internal version number, which is 4.0 for Windows 95.
I was about to say that most apps should check the NT number but then I remembered that until XP it wasn’t common to run a NT system, but then I remembered NT 4 existed basically in the same timeframe as 95 did, and even if the argument went to “it’s a 9x application”, shouldn’t these OSes at least have some sort of build number or different identifier systems? Because as I said NT systems were around, so they would probably need a check for that
Some programs just didn’t work on NT though. A lot of installers were more OS specific back then.
.net core is not a thing anymore in case somebody it’s not aware, now is just .net. (unless you use really old version of course).
But it’s still the core lol
https://github.com/dotnet/core
Well the repo link yes… create a new repo and migrate everything… just so the url doesn’t say core no more it’s quite unnecessary.
And to be honest actual code is currently under https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet The other links is just for news and docs currently.
I agree, it was mostly a joke. But as the parent commenter explained, “.net is now dot net” is still confusing. They really should just cut ties with the .net name and start fresh. “.net is now MS Interop Framework” or some such. Adopt more sane server versioning moving forward, so searching for information isn’t so wild across all the possible variations and versions of .net, dot net core, dot net framework, asp.net, etc
I have the same issue with Java. Oracle JDK, Open JDK or some other weird distribution? Enteprise Servers or a Framework like Springboot? It’s always easier if you’re familiar with the technology.
Hey now, why don’t you join my work and use
jboss-4.2.2.GA? (kill me)I really don’t think it’s that bad. The only weird thing is .NET Core becoming just .NET in version 5.
Not too weird… It’s the “one true .NET version” now. The legacy .NET Framework had a good run but it’s not really receiving updates any more.
I have no complaints about just calling it .NET. The distinction between .NET and .NET Framework isn’t much of a problem. It’s the fact that .NET and .NET Core aren’t actually different that’s odd. It underwent a name change without really being a different project, meanwhile the Framework -> Core change was actually a new project.
Actually they are different.
.Net core, mono and xamarin used to be completely separate and slightly incompatible runtimes.
They have all been unified under .Net so c# (and other .net languages) will run exactly the same on each.
So the coreclr runtime still exists but you no longer need to target it specifically.
The name difference was only to differentiate the legacy .NET Framework with the new .NET Core while both were being developed concurrently. They never intended to keep the “Core” suffix forever. .NET Core had a lot of missing APIs compared to .NET Framework 4.5., and “.NET 1.0” would have been ambiguous. It was to signify that it was a new API that isn’t fully compatible yet.
Once .NET Core implemented nearly all the APIs from the legacy .NET Framework, the version numbers were no longer ambiguous (starting from .NET 5.0), and the legacy framework wasn’t used as much as it used to be, it made sense to drop the “Core” suffix :)
Yes… But ASP.NET Core kept the branding. Thus “Core” still exists, concurrently with the regular “.NET.”
I scream silently everytime.
May I introduce you to Usb 3.x renaming?
3.0, 3.1Gen1, 3.2Gen1, 3.2Gen1x1 are the 5Gbps version.
3.1Gen2, 3.2Gen2, 3.2Gen1x2, 3.2Gen2x1 are the 10Gbps version.
Are those USB naming schemes, or edgy usernames from 2000s like
xXx_31Gen3x1HardCore_xXx?The reasoning it was to not confuse with .net framework 4.x series, and since they went beyond 4.x, it’s just .net now. I believe .net core moniker was to explicitly distinguish is from framework versions.
It didn’t help the confusion at all, tch. Being a .net guy since 1.0, you just figure it out eventually
Razor Blazor
I’m developing it for Xbox One X.
Remember when Nintendo was panned for the name “Wii U”, and Microsoft saw that and said “hold my beer”
example.net
.Net is both the umbrella term for the entire ecosystem and the new runtime haha
Microsoft is so bad at naming things!