Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaydbfif | Hacker News Reader

Okay so my latest issue http2... In C# you have to be running the newest version of Windows to use it. You know how happy my boss was to hear that we needed new server licenses to use http2? Very. Use .NET core? Not ready yet for production yet but probably will be in a few years.

In Java I can run Jetty or Netty on whatever and use http2. Old Os or whatever doesn't matter because the protocol isn't tied to the OS network stack.

View on HN

Net core wouldn't help as kestrel does not support http2 yet. We just put an nginx proxy in front of our cluster now, which may or may not solve your issues.

.NET Core 1.x is perfectly suitable for building new production apps today.

Having used it in production for a more than a month now... No. No it's not. Mono and .Net Core RC1 were more stable for the same workloads.

Anecdotally, I've not seen any issues, but then I've also been hosting on IIS. Obviously, YMMV.

ETA: Also, my comment above was meant to be from the perspective of that it is a technically finished product with an active support lifespan. I did not mean to imply that it was better (or worse) than any alternatives, but that under the accepted definition of "production ready" where a thing is finished and supported, it is suitable to that.

Maybe "finished and supported" is the definition of production ready in Microsoft-land, but I'd say "stable, well-tested and batteries-included" is a lot more important.

.NET Core has none of that going.

Again, this seems like an anecdotal divide more than anything. .NET Core has certainly seemed "stable, well-tested, and batteries-included" for any of the projects where I have used it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com