[bartread]

The .NET and .NET Core version numbers are another minefield, and I still can't remember (and don't really care) what's what. Your choices are either to laugh or be filled with rage. I'm coming round to the first one having mostly opted for the second in recent months.

[int_19h]

What's particularly weird about .NET version numbers? They're monotonically increasing, with the exception of .NET Core getting a reset to 1.0 (which kinda makes sense, since it's a different and incompatible product).

[ltowel]

.Net Framework, .Net Core and .Net Standard all have different version numbers, which correspond to different things. In addition, since Core and Standard are both in the 1.Xs currently, it can be confusing. Finally, the .Net Core SDK is versioned differently from the run time, both somewhere in the low 1.Xs right now.

``` >dotnet Microsoft .NET Core Shared Framework Host Version : 1.1.0 Build : 928f77c4bc3f49d892459992fb6e1d5542cb5e86 ```

``` >dotnet --version 1.0.0-preview2-1-003177 ```

The version numbers aren't necessarily weird, but the versioning sure is.

Disclaimer: MS Employee who uses Dotnet, but doesn't work on it.

[skeletonjelly]

Might be worth posting this

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/net-standar...

I should probably print it out

I was in version hell yesterday, targeting a standard (1.5) because I thought it would help me run as .NET Core 1 whilst supporting a 4.6.2 .NET Framework dll but that broke something else. It was a juggling game of trade offs

[int_19h]

Ah, I keep forgetting about the Standard. This makes sense (as in, it does make less sense now that it makes sense).

[tmzt]

Framework 1.4 > 4.7 > 4.6.1?

[reitanqild]

Just copying another idea from Java I'd guess:

Java 1.4 -> Java 5.

(Yes, I'm a Java programmer)

[int_19h]

1.4 is not really "greater than" 4.7, they're just two different parallel tracks.