I get where people are coming from, but I honestly don't think it's that hard. If someone is new to .NET, all they need to care about is .NET 6 and later, so it doesn't matter much.
I think everyone is honestly too harsh on Microsoft. They are the best at evolving software (not perfect) while keeping backwards compatibility. Apple and Google just throw things away or suddenly change things and say "deal with it". Of course it's easy to keep naming simple when you do that. There's no way Oracle, Apple, Google, etc. could have managed the transition from .NET Framework to .NET 6 like Microsoft has. Apple would have just changed to something completely different and thus named it something new, just like they did with Swift.
Whether new developers need to worry about developing for OG .NET or not (I agree that they shouldn't) doesn't really have anything to do with what people who talk about OG .NET should call it in order to make it clear that OG .NET is what they're talking about.
> If someone is new to .NET, all they need to care about is .NET 6 and later, so it doesn't matter much.
That is an optimistic viewpoint in some ways; Lots of shops still have FW projects around, possibly ones older than they should be, but the workflows have enough differences that I'd say you should know NET6 and the gotchas between that and FW.
Unfortunely anything related to UWP and WinUI seems to have plenty of folks on the teams used to the Apple and Google ways.
Also there are plenty of .NET Framework libraries on the enterprise space that are yet to work properly on .NET Core infrastructure, or outside Windows, as they are mere wrappers to native Windows APIs.
Since Java 6, Oracle has managed to evolve Java with less breakage (there is some specially on the Java 9 transition) than .NET Framework => .NET Core, or .NET Native => .NET Core.
Microsoft has documentation for the history. Here's one: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/introduction#ne...
I think everyone is honestly too harsh on Microsoft. They are the best at evolving software (not perfect) while keeping backwards compatibility. Apple and Google just throw things away or suddenly change things and say "deal with it". Of course it's easy to keep naming simple when you do that. There's no way Oracle, Apple, Google, etc. could have managed the transition from .NET Framework to .NET 6 like Microsoft has. Apple would have just changed to something completely different and thus named it something new, just like they did with Swift.