A couple months ago I installed .NET core on a Ubuntu virtual machine running on the Windows 10 hypervisor, and was able to get a MVC5 app running using Visual Studio Code. As someone who really loves Visual Studio (it made me expect a lot more from my tools) and C# (it made me expect a lot more from my languages), it was an exciting moment. I actually took a selfie with my monitor.
It was still a little rough: the "getting started" instructions ONLY worked on Ubuntu 14.x and not Ubuntu 16.x, and my PR to the documentation pointing this out was nixed. (I notice they've since added a disclaimer: https://docs.asp.net/en/1.0.0-rc1/getting-started/installing...). I really hope to someday be able to build projects with React and a .NET core WebApi and be confident that my teammates will be able to get the project running on their macbooks without kms.
MVC 6 is the version that works best with Core, although they don't really refer to it directly much any more. Both MVC 6 and Web API 2 are now part of Core. They're just packages like everything else.
MVC 6's name is now also ASP.NET Core MVC 1.x.x. It's really a version number reset. The confusing thing is that it's not plugged through everywhere and people interchange the two regularly.
#wellactually We don't talk about ASP.NET MVC as a separate thing anymore. It's just ASP.NET Core. So you might build an MVC app on ASP.NET Core, or build APIs on ASP.NET Core, etc., but it's all just ASP.NET Core.
Personally, I like the new "one true name". However, most .NET developers know what ASP.NET MVC is for, but are less clear about what ASP.NET Core is about. Hopefully this will change over time but, for now at least, MVC is still a useful term from a marketing perspective, or at least that's what my publishers tell me. :)
I actually used that version in my recent book. You can see it in this section [0] of the first chapter (which is free to read, with no sign-up) that tries to explain the confusing naming.
That tweet dates from 2010 and the same quote is on this page [0] dated 2009. Of course, it's possible Martin updated it after the initial publication. I'm not saying you copied it either, it could have been independently created.
Visual Studio Code is pretty neat, and it's plugin system is very powerful: more and more languages are adding amazing IntelliSense and interactive debugging support for it. It's like Atom, if Atom was faster and focused on exposing nice APIs for autocompletion!
I've played with VS Code a bit, it's a pretty cool tool for small scale scripting, but it's not really a replacement for a full fledged IDE.
Hopefully Jetbrains will release their cross platform C# IDE sometime soon. I would prefer Visual Studio, but I don't think that's going to happen (at least not anytime soon).
Not being fully fledged IDE can be good and bad. I'm using VSCode for most things I use VS for. It's super fast to launch, great language extensions, debugger, integrated terminal and tasks. It's like sublime and visual studio had a baby. I have licenses for jet brains but I seldom ever use it.
I may also be a bit biased since I contribute to VScode extensions. But I see that as a positive. I use a free editor that I can hack, look at its source and collaborate in the open.
It was still a little rough: the "getting started" instructions ONLY worked on Ubuntu 14.x and not Ubuntu 16.x, and my PR to the documentation pointing this out was nixed. (I notice they've since added a disclaimer: https://docs.asp.net/en/1.0.0-rc1/getting-started/installing...). I really hope to someday be able to build projects with React and a .NET core WebApi and be confident that my teammates will be able to get the project running on their macbooks without kms.