WinFX and the ".NET 3.0" misnomer
-
Wow... I'm underwhelmed. 28 out of how many thousands using the .NET Framework?? Kind of reminds me about the legions of people who pitched a bitch about Microsoft finally ending support for VB6... -- modified at 15:18 Thursday 10th August, 2006
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
I just started this last night at midnight.
-
I just started this last night at midnight.
Why the "big deal"? They could call it ".NET DogPile 1.0" for all I care. It still makes me money when I write code in it...
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-
Why the "big deal"? They could call it ".NET DogPile 1.0" for all I care. It still makes me money when I write code in it...
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
If you don't care then don't comment. I somehow doubt you've even read the petition. Besides, with all the thousands of .NET programmers out there and the 3.2 million CP users, only 3 new threads since yesterday night on these forums. Is that a bad sign? :wtf:
-
Sorry this isn't really much of a question as it is a political thing, but I didn't want to put it in the Soapbox in fear of trolls. Anyone else disappointed by the ".NET 3.0" name for WinFX? http://www.petitiononline.com/winfx/petition.html[^] I've listed several reasons here, so read up.
I'm starting a petition against your petition. Microsoft finally made up its mind on the names and are sticking to them. I'm happy they're finally solid on it and will not stand for your attempt to disrupt that.
Logifusion[^] If not entertaining, write your Congressman.
-
I'm starting a petition against your petition. Microsoft finally made up its mind on the names and are sticking to them. I'm happy they're finally solid on it and will not stand for your attempt to disrupt that.
Logifusion[^] If not entertaining, write your Congressman.
Be my guest. I see nothing solid about the decision, nor do I see what deciding on a new name has to do with sticking to it. If you're going to petition you'd best have a good reason for it, not just retaliation :)
-
If you don't care then don't comment. I somehow doubt you've even read the petition. Besides, with all the thousands of .NET programmers out there and the 3.2 million CP users, only 3 new threads since yesterday night on these forums. Is that a bad sign? :wtf:
I beg to differ. I find all 8 points on your petition rather petty...
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-
I beg to differ. I find all 8 points on your petition rather petty...
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
Actually the eighth point is not my point, it's a reiteration of Microsoft's point. Petty? Yes, the eighth one is indeed. Again I don't think you've read it properly. Not that I expect someone who doesn't care to read it.
-
Actually the eighth point is not my point, it's a reiteration of Microsoft's point. Petty? Yes, the eighth one is indeed. Again I don't think you've read it properly. Not that I expect someone who doesn't care to read it.
You haven't read my post properly. I said ALL 8 points of your petition are rather petty, no just point #8. And yes, I have read your petition properly. I just don't see what the "big deal" is... Other than "you don't like the verison number".
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-
You haven't read my post properly. I said ALL 8 points of your petition are rather petty, no just point #8. And yes, I have read your petition properly. I just don't see what the "big deal" is... Other than "you don't like the verison number".
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
And you never will see if you keep trivializing it for yourself.
-
And you never will see if you keep trivializing it for yourself.
I don't think I'm the one "trivializing" anything here. You're the one nit picking over a VERSION NUMBER! After reading your petition about a dozen times, I still fail to see why this is such a huge deal. For instance. Let's take your point #5. "Mangling the .NET framework with Win32 specific API breaks that, isolating the entire framework to Windows". Apparently you haven't noticed that this has always been true, even since version 1.0 of the Framework. The CLR and the Base Class Library, like System, System.Security, System.Runtime, System.Reflection, ..., is still intact and is NOT Windows specific, and therefore portable to other platforms, such as Linux. Now, on top of those classes in the CLI, there are many, many, many extensions, such as the System.Windows.Forms namespace. If you haven't noticed, this namespace is VERY specific to Windows and has been around since version 1.0 of the Framework! How about the System.ServiceProcess namespace or System.Management? Same thing - Windows specific! Adding WinFX as another set of extensions is nothing new to the expansion of the .NET Framework. Each project, like Mono, has to take the base CLI and expand on it, just like Microsoft has done with it's Windows-based version.
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-
I don't think I'm the one "trivializing" anything here. You're the one nit picking over a VERSION NUMBER! After reading your petition about a dozen times, I still fail to see why this is such a huge deal. For instance. Let's take your point #5. "Mangling the .NET framework with Win32 specific API breaks that, isolating the entire framework to Windows". Apparently you haven't noticed that this has always been true, even since version 1.0 of the Framework. The CLR and the Base Class Library, like System, System.Security, System.Runtime, System.Reflection, ..., is still intact and is NOT Windows specific, and therefore portable to other platforms, such as Linux. Now, on top of those classes in the CLI, there are many, many, many extensions, such as the System.Windows.Forms namespace. If you haven't noticed, this namespace is VERY specific to Windows and has been around since version 1.0 of the Framework! How about the System.ServiceProcess namespace or System.Management? Same thing - Windows specific! Adding WinFX as another set of extensions is nothing new to the expansion of the .NET Framework. Each project, like Mono, has to take the base CLI and expand on it, just like Microsoft has done with it's Windows-based version.
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
I don't think I'm the one "trivializing" anything here. You're the one nit picking over a VERSION NUMBER!
Uhh, no? I'm complaining about two technologies being merged into one, disrupting one's progress. I cite the version numbers because the messed up version numbers is a very good indication of the consequences to come. If it's as insignificant a matter as you say, they wouldn't have made the change in the first place.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Now, on top of those classes in the CLI, there are many, many, many extensions, such as the System.Windows.Forms namespace. If you haven't noticed, this namespace is VERY specific to Windows and has been around since version 1.0 of the Framework! How about the System.ServiceProcess namespace or System.Management? Same thing - Windows specific!
What they didn't do in these cases is release a new API under the same name just one year later. Windows Forms being under the System namespace is a bit unfortunate, and it is the only reason people criticize Mono for being incomplete. Alas, because it's a small portion of the .NET framework, it works. Not so with .NET 3.0, especially when they start adding more breaking CLR changes to it in the future. There's the risk that these will depend on the past Windows-specific additions, and the version number "3.5" for the LinQ release is a good example. If the 2.0 implementation is in one directory, 3.0 another but depending on 2.0, does 3.5 depend on 3.0? See how it starts breaking down? Point being: the guts of .NET 2.0 is portable, none of .NET 3.0 is portable, so what guarantee is there that .NET 3.5 onward will be portable at all?
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Adding WinFX as another set of extensions is nothing new to the expansion of the .NET Framework. Each project, like Mono, has to take the base CLI and expand on it, just like Microsoft has done with it's Windows-based version.
Last time I checked, the only thing Mono added to the BCL was an additional encryption algorithm. -- modified at 19:41 Thursday 10th August, 2006
-
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
I don't think I'm the one "trivializing" anything here. You're the one nit picking over a VERSION NUMBER!
Uhh, no? I'm complaining about two technologies being merged into one, disrupting one's progress. I cite the version numbers because the messed up version numbers is a very good indication of the consequences to come. If it's as insignificant a matter as you say, they wouldn't have made the change in the first place.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Now, on top of those classes in the CLI, there are many, many, many extensions, such as the System.Windows.Forms namespace. If you haven't noticed, this namespace is VERY specific to Windows and has been around since version 1.0 of the Framework! How about the System.ServiceProcess namespace or System.Management? Same thing - Windows specific!
What they didn't do in these cases is release a new API under the same name just one year later. Windows Forms being under the System namespace is a bit unfortunate, and it is the only reason people criticize Mono for being incomplete. Alas, because it's a small portion of the .NET framework, it works. Not so with .NET 3.0, especially when they start adding more breaking CLR changes to it in the future. There's the risk that these will depend on the past Windows-specific additions, and the version number "3.5" for the LinQ release is a good example. If the 2.0 implementation is in one directory, 3.0 another but depending on 2.0, does 3.5 depend on 3.0? See how it starts breaking down? Point being: the guts of .NET 2.0 is portable, none of .NET 3.0 is portable, so what guarantee is there that .NET 3.5 onward will be portable at all?
Dave Kreskowiak wrote:
Adding WinFX as another set of extensions is nothing new to the expansion of the .NET Framework. Each project, like Mono, has to take the base CLI and expand on it, just like Microsoft has done with it's Windows-based version.
Last time I checked, the only thing Mono added to the BCL was an additional encryption algorithm. -- modified at 19:41 Thursday 10th August, 2006
reinux wrote:
Not so with .NET 3.0, especially when they start adding more breaking CLR changes to it in the future.
So what did they add to the CLR to break it? What did they do that now makes it Windows specific?? Nothing! Not a damn thing! I think you're completely ignoring the modular design of the CLR, Base Class Library, and all the extensions in the .NET Framework.
reinux wrote:
and the version number "3.5" for the LinQ release is a good example. If the 2.0 implementation is in one directory, 3.0 another but depending on 2.0, does 3.5 depend on 3.0? See how it starts breaking down?
Nope. And frankly, I don't care. Linq is the next generation of the language and compiler namespaces in the Base Class Library. They are non-Microsoft specific extensions that will work with other non-Microsoft database engines. I think you're seriously confused about what parts are meant to be portable and what are not. The .NET Framework is Microsoft's Windows-based implementation of the ECMA Common Language Infrastructure. The CLI is what is meant to be portable, not the .NET Framework!
reinux wrote:
Last time I checked, the only thing Mono added to the BCL was an additional encryption algorithm.
And this is Microsoft's fault how?? The Mono project is responsible for their own extensions to the BCL. Be it their own Forms namespace, or another encryption namespace. The problem with Mono is that they don't have the thousand or so people Microsoft has writing namespaces for their .NET BCL.
Dave Kreskowiak Microsoft MVP - Visual Basic
-
Sorry this isn't really much of a question as it is a political thing, but I didn't want to put it in the Soapbox in fear of trolls. Anyone else disappointed by the ".NET 3.0" name for WinFX? http://www.petitiononline.com/winfx/petition.html[^] I've listed several reasons here, so read up.
:zzz::zzz::zzz: