[NetMageSCW]

No one suggesting using Windows Update to install new apps, they are suggesting the current .Net framework should be elevated to a first class Windows citizen and included with Windows installs and updated with Windows Update, and that seems like and obvious idea that should have been implemented when .Net Core became .Net.

[Rohansi]

.NET versions are not fully backwards compatible. Would you like every Windows install to ship with over ten versions of the .NET runtime?

[jitl]

We would like it to be good. Whichever way to achieve goodness - either be backwards compat, or ship all the stable versions, I don't care but the current situation is silly. Apple gets flack for this and that, but their UI toolkit situation is lightyears ahead; you just pick the OS version you want to target in your app build settings and it will work that way for everyone.

[Rohansi]

100 MB per runtime, for everyone, and the majority of them are out of support. Is that really the good option? Why not the option the author dismissed: a 9 MB AOT-compiled executable which doesn't need a separate runtime?

[badsectoracula]

> Would you like every Windows install to ship with over ten versions of the .NET runtime?

A better approach would be to not break backwards compatibility in the first place.

[Rohansi]

That's what .NET Framework (the one that ships with Windows) tried to do. It usually worked out but you'll still run into compatibility issues sometimes after bug fixes, behavioral changes, etc. because people accidentally build software which depends on quirks.

[biorach]

Yes?