.NET is 20 years old. 20.
.net core is not the same thing as .net. It's ~5 years old. 5. It's supposed to supersede .net and is not completely compatible, meaning that .net has effectively already been dropped.
That most of my 20 year old .NET code is no longer executed isn't down to the platform or language choice
Hasn't .net changed hugely over the years? is your 20 year old code even compatible with the current versions? I seem to recall hearing from a few people about huge pain migrating from .net version X to version X+1. You can assert that you don't run it for business reasons all you like, but you also can't just run it as-is on the current version for technical reasons.
rewrites to make things cloud native
...you rewrote, rather than refactoring? I mean I guess that's cool if you're billing by the hour.
Microsoft aren't dropping support for it in our lifetimes
1. I presume you have this in writing from microsoft? I mean surely nobody would make such a bold statement like this without having it in writing, right?
2. They already effectively dropped .net by switching to ,net core. see my first point above
I'd probably not bother - I mean, th...(blah blah blah)
...way to miss the OP's point. Was that intentional?
what would by then be my legacy products
Oh, maybe not intentional: I see now: you're not building your stuff to actually last. You see it as a feature that you have to rewrite the same thing every 5 years (billable hours amirite?).
virtual Win 10 machine for development
"I'll just keep using VB6. It'll be fine."
Biting the hand that feeds IT
