{"id":6121,"date":"2016-01-19T15:56:00","date_gmt":"2016-01-19T15:56:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.msdn.microsoft.com\/webdev\/2016\/01\/19\/asp-net-5-is-dead-introducing-asp-net-core-1-0-and-net-core-1-0\/"},"modified":"2023-09-21T11:38:22","modified_gmt":"2023-09-21T18:38:22","slug":"asp-net-5-is-dead-introducing-asp-net-core-1-0-and-net-core-1-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/devblogs.microsoft.com\/dotnet\/asp-net-5-is-dead-introducing-asp-net-core-1-0-and-net-core-1-0\/","title":{"rendered":"ASP.NET 5 is dead – Introducing ASP.NET Core 1.0 and .NET Core 1.0"},"content":{"rendered":"

This post originally appeared on Scott Hanselman’s blog at: http:\/\/www.hanselman.com\/blog\/ASPNET5IsDeadIntroducingASPNETCore10AndNETCore10.aspx<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Naming is hard.<\/p>\n

\n

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. – Phil Karlton<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It’s very easy to armchair quarterback and say that “they should have named it Foo and it would be easy” but very often there’s many players involved in naming things. ASP.NET is a good ‘brand’ that’s been around for 15 years or so. ASP.NET 4.6 is a supported and released product that you can get and use now from http:\/\/get.asp.net<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, naming the new, completely written from scratch ASP.NET framework “ASP.NET 5” was a bad idea for a one major reasons: 5 > 4.6 makes it seem like ASP.NET 5 is bigger, better, and replaces ASP.NET 4.6. Not so.<\/p>\n

So we’re changing the name.<\/p>\n

Reintroducing ASP.NET Core 1.0 and .NET Core 1.0<\/h3>\n