[victorNicollet]

I'm a maintainer for an open source .NET library that, ironically, only exists because it provides a feature that Microsoft removed from .NET during the migration to .NET Core.

Very rarely have I needed a library to solve a problem, and found that a library from Microsoft was even available at all.

AspNetCore is its own world inside the greater .NET universe. It is a web framework with a "batteries included" philosophy, and it's not unusual for users of those to want all their use cases covered by the framework itself. The original article laments AspNetCore introducing its own dependency injection system, but this is par for the course in languages that care about dependency injection (see PHP's Laravel and Symfony, or Java's Spring). As for AspNetCore developers only knowing Entity Framework, the same argument could be made about 'db' in Django or 'ActiveRecord' in Ruby on Rails.

The philosophy of "It is good that I no longer have to use a separate tool for what should have been a feature of my framework" is understandable, and it's a bit disingenuous to describe it as "It is good that I have fewer choices available to me"

And it's also a bit disingenuous to describe AspNetCore users commenting on an AspNetCore feature announcement in the AspNetCore GitHub repository as ".NET Developers".