Why Developers and Companies Hate .NET 9

Hello, everybody. I'm Nick, and in this video, I will talk about .NET's version support policy and release cadence and discuss what Microsoft can do to improve adoption.

Don't forget to comment, like and subscribe :)

Social Media:

#csharp #dotnet

[dalemac]

Herodevs user here. We use their vue2 support, because migrating 20 services with a team of 3 people is not an option. Their support has been a good experience so far.

[xF]

Meanwhile my corporation still using WebForms released in 2002

[JoeStevens]

My biggest issue with this whole release policy is defining 3 years as long term. Three years is at best mid term. We need releases that are officially supported 5+ years so that we don't need to constantly go back and touch working projects.

[kaseywahl]

My company never upgrades to the 18 month support versions. It takes us about a year to upgrade to the long-term support versions (6, 8, 10) and we just finished upgrading all of our .NET 6 solutions to .NET 8 last month. If we stopped developing new solutions and just dedicated a month or so to .NET upgrades, I'm sure we could get all of our services upgraded faster, but if we upgraded for every release, it would just be a neverending revolving door of upgrades, and it just isn't worth it at that point.

[stephanf]

We don't hate it. We are just not done yet upgrading to 8.

[josh]

The obsession that companies have with releasing a new version every single year is insane. Not every single product or service needs a new iteration each year.

[T___Brown]

Its never just a simple update. Not because of the compatibility but because nugets are deprecated due to security and you may want to use a new feature and that changes code

[adamblade]

Companies are upgrading? I swear most of the time it's still .NET Framework not even net core for most projects I've worked on.

[turcanuioangeorge]

You will laugh but in outsourcing the client's approval is the biggest factor in upgrading or not. You can give them the biggest list of advantages if they say no, it's a no. They will upgrade when they see the monetary impact of not doing it otherwise delay until needed.

[alirezanet]

people saying LTS doesn't always mean that their company doesn't want to move to the latest version... but often it is a limitation of cloud providers like AWS. For example, you can't deploy .NET 9 Lambda to AWS, so AWS is dictating what version we should use :(

[kaiserbergin]

Company: Only use LTS.
Me: You can't see what's in my docker image...

[Rafa_informatico]

People watching your channel is more likely to update to .NET 9 than developers that don't even update themselves if not forced by their boss/project.

[MagicNumberArg]

It would be nice if LTS had 4 years support rather than 3, so that when time comes we could update to the latest version instead of an LTS that only has 1 year left. I.E. 6 to 10, 8 to 12.

[ivancavlek]

It would be much better if Microsoft upgraded .NET, C# etc. when they have a decent pool of worthy changes that make sense to upgrade to, instead of producing "something" every 12 months just to produce something. I don't have a problem in waiting 17 months for something new if it's worth it.
I don't think even the shareholders or analysts think that deploying something every year will raise/lower the stock price.

[fotisspatharakis]

I think that if Microsoft move to Forever support none will move to newer versions, leading to lack of engagement. Having all dotnet versions as LTS would be perfect

[martinmayer]

From my experience, it's either draconian compliance or lack of automated testing that slows the adoption of new versions of dependencies. The better coverage and more autonomy (and accountability) you have as a team, the easier it is to move forward quickly.

[steve-wright-uk]

Our company intended to upgrade from 6 to 8 in January, but that plan got kicked down the road due to other requirements needing the developer resources. Now we are at the stage where we must get off 6. We're just having the debate as to whether it should be 8 or 9. Everyone agrees that the effort to upgrade from 6 to 8 or from 6 to 9 about the same, and that 9 offers some significant performance benefits, especially around memory.

So what's the issue? Given our track record of kicking upgrades down the road, if we went to 8 then we'd have 12 months to get off 8 when 10 drops, but if we were on 9 we'd only have 6 months. We've just agreed to go for 9 with the acknowledgement that the next upgrade window will be only 6 months. (People still have memories of the upgrade from 3 to 6 where we enforced the StyleCop rules across the board - hopefully 6 to 9 will be a lot less painful).

[paulguk]

I didn't update our prod containers to net7 because 'not LTS', but all during that period we stayed on net6 we had to be wary of packages being updated and avoid any net7 specific updates. Broadly it's far easier to maintain packages on the 'latest' version of dotnet, even if that is an STS version. I don't think the STS/LTS distinction is too concerning personally. We started moving containers to net9 a day or two after release, and we'll try and maintain containers yearly regardless. I appreciate not all companies will be in a similar position with the freedom to move this fast though.

[yeahdima]

I've voted .Net 8.0 in your poll. However, we do want to migrate to .Net 9.0 soon. Give it a few months and the survey will most likely have a very different result.

[adambickford]

Java is up to 23, but it's not unusual to see projects stuck on java ~8 still. We have the same LTS issue; nobody wants to upgrade to something unsupported and tons of 'preview' features.