Is .NET Core stable enough for mission critical applications?

Depends strongly on how “critical” your “mission” is. If we are talking nuclear power stations or avionics, any modern framework is probably not “stable” enough. So, let’s redefine the question a bit: “Given an application where .net 4.6.1 is appropriate, would .net core be ok too?” In terms of bugs I’d say yes. The main disadvantages I see are: Tooling: VS And Azure support is there (obviously) but not that great compared to full .net. Also stuff is still very much in flux. This will hopefully change with VS2017. Packages: Still rather limited. Particularly, Entity Framework 7 isn’t that great yet. Also, if we are talking a desktop app, a brief search didn’t yield any WPF capability yet. The biggest problem I have with .net core is actually the business case behind it. The main feature that I see touted is its ability to run on linux. This doesn’t really excite me because: So does mono. In any cloud environment the cost of the OS is actually trivial. If you are a .net developer and bid for a linux contract, chances are that the company requesting it is actually a linux based company, with a java stack and java/linux admins and infrastructure. Making them manage some .net stuff in addition to their normal work isn’t going to win you any friends there. On the other hand, Microsoft sees this as the next generation .net. So sooner or later it will be more supported than the old-style .net. (Unless they decide to Silverlight it, but that can happen with any technology.) Without a specific requirement mandating it, I’d wait out at least another release. As I said, not because of any bugs, but because my impression is that the tooling and the ecosystem isn’t where I want them yet. read less