.NET 3.What?
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Ya. To be perfectly honest, it's gonna probably keep me from actually using either one in production for a good while. Every time i start to think about the ordeal that will be explaining all of this to the installer writers, i shudder... and then find a way to avoid it. Someone else can go first...
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I was extremely surprised to find out that a majority of developers did not have a clear understanding of .NET versions and CLR versions. A majority of people I talked to in conferences (MIX and ODC) somehow thought that .NET 3.5 has a different runtime or that it had a separate set of (non LINQ) framework classes (System.Data, System.Web etc) than .NET 2.0 SP 1. I had hard time explaining that System.Web in .NET 3.5 is same as System.Web in .NET 2.0 SP1. Wasn't the purpose of naming conventions to cause less confusion among developers in the first place?
You have, what I would term, a very formal turn of phrase not seen in these isles since the old King passed from this world to the next. martin_hughes on VDK
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
This will to some extent damper adoption. I cant imagine attempting to explain the deployment and technology to my clients. Ideally, I'd like to say we are using version X of product Y without having to worry about runtime and framework version requirements.
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Is what I think you meant. Please use language we can all understand :)
-
Is what I think you meant. Please use language we can all understand :)
QmxvdyBtZSE= :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Yes, the whole thing was a bit of a mess and doesn't look like it will straighten itself out for a while. It gets even messier if you start looking at the C# version numbers since the version of C# in .NET 3.5 is C# 3.0.
Scott. —In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday. —Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
[Forum Guidelines] [Articles] [Blog]
-
I was extremely surprised to find out that a majority of developers did not have a clear understanding of .NET versions and CLR versions. A majority of people I talked to in conferences (MIX and ODC) somehow thought that .NET 3.5 has a different runtime or that it had a separate set of (non LINQ) framework classes (System.Data, System.Web etc) than .NET 2.0 SP 1. I had hard time explaining that System.Web in .NET 3.5 is same as System.Web in .NET 2.0 SP1. Wasn't the purpose of naming conventions to cause less confusion among developers in the first place?
You have, what I would term, a very formal turn of phrase not seen in these isles since the old King passed from this world to the next. martin_hughes on VDK
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I was extremely surprised to find out that a majority of developers did not have a clear understanding of .NET versions and CLR versions.
It actually shouldn't be that surprising.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Wasn't the purpose of naming conventions to cause less confusion among developers in the first place?
Partly...it was also to keep the ".NET" moniker in the public attention...too many people thought MS was moving away from .NET because they didn't realize that WinFx was just extension libraries on top of .NET.
Scott. —In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday. —Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
[Forum Guidelines] [Articles] [Blog]
-
Yes, the whole thing was a bit of a mess and doesn't look like it will straighten itself out for a while. It gets even messier if you start looking at the C# version numbers since the version of C# in .NET 3.5 is C# 3.0.
Scott. —In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday. —Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
[Forum Guidelines] [Articles] [Blog]
I received a resume today where the applicant said he had experience in C# 3.5. It just hurt, you know, deep down.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
I received a resume today where the applicant said he had experience in C# 3.5. It just hurt, you know, deep down.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I'd love to interview that person. :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! VCF Blog
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Where have you been? This all happened over a year ago. Yeah, maybe it's hitting home now. There was a HUGE ruckus on the various blogs when this was announced. It was apparently a purely marketing thing, and the VS people just resigned themselves to it as a war they couldn't win. My guess is that the next runtime will mysteriously be called version 4 or 5 (depends on how many mid-level runtimes we get).
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
Where have you been? This all happened over a year ago. Yeah, maybe it's hitting home now. There was a HUGE ruckus on the various blogs when this was announced. It was apparently a purely marketing thing, and the VS people just resigned themselves to it as a war they couldn't win. My guess is that the next runtime will mysteriously be called version 4 or 5 (depends on how many mid-level runtimes we get).
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
My guess is that the next runtime will mysteriously be called version 4 or 5 (depends on how many mid-level runtimes we get).
No. The next thing after dotNet is gonna be commaNet
-
Where have you been? This all happened over a year ago. Yeah, maybe it's hitting home now. There was a HUGE ruckus on the various blogs when this was announced. It was apparently a purely marketing thing, and the VS people just resigned themselves to it as a war they couldn't win. My guess is that the next runtime will mysteriously be called version 4 or 5 (depends on how many mid-level runtimes we get).
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
I received a resume today where the applicant said he had experience in C# 3.5. It just hurt, you know, deep down.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
I received a resume today where the applicant said he had experience in C# 3.5.
Ouch. I know the feeling.
Scott. —In just two days, tomorrow will be yesterday. —Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
[Forum Guidelines] [Articles] [Blog]
-
I received a resume today where the applicant said he had experience in C# 3.5. It just hurt, you know, deep down.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Did he mention how many years of experience he have? 2 years? 3 or more? :doh:
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
-
Did he mention how many years of experience he have? 2 years? 3 or more? :doh:
Mostly, when you see programmers, they aren't doing anything. One of the attractive things about programmers is that you cannot tell whether or not they are working simply by looking at them. Very often they're sitting there seemingly drinking coffee and gossiping, or just staring into space. What the programmer is trying to do is get a handle on all the individual and unrelated ideas that are scampering around in his head. (Charles M Strauss)
-
I just wanted to have a brief rant. ahem. I think naming the WinFX extensions ".NET 3.0" (that work on the 2.0 CLR) instead of .NET 2.5 was dumb, and then naming the next version .NET 3.5 instead of 3.0 and having it run on the 2.0 CLR instead of the 3.0 CLR wasn't quite dumb, just messy. End of rant. (For the explanation read Brad Adams' blog entry[^])
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I'd say it's both messy and dumb, because the decision was made as part of the dumb decision to rename WinFX. (And of course, my angry petition[^] just for old time's sake.) By the way, I wonder if Jason Zander being moved to the Visual Studio team had anything to do with his being largely responsible for this whole mess?
-
Where have you been? This all happened over a year ago. Yeah, maybe it's hitting home now. There was a HUGE ruckus on the various blogs when this was announced. It was apparently a purely marketing thing, and the VS people just resigned themselves to it as a war they couldn't win. My guess is that the next runtime will mysteriously be called version 4 or 5 (depends on how many mid-level runtimes we get).
-- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
I'd prefer they call it .NET 2010 or something just so that we can have a fresh start somewhere far away from the wretched 3 and 3.5.
-
I'd say it's both messy and dumb, because the decision was made as part of the dumb decision to rename WinFX. (And of course, my angry petition[^] just for old time's sake.) By the way, I wonder if Jason Zander being moved to the Visual Studio team had anything to do with his being largely responsible for this whole mess?
That's a great petition and, had I known about it, I would've signed it! I'm beginning to think that petitions in general rarely work (can anyone point me to any significant ones that have?)
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
I'd prefer they call it .NET 2010 or something just so that we can have a fresh start somewhere far away from the wretched 3 and 3.5.
