.NET 3.What?
-
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 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
But, before they did that, people were *confused* ( so the official rationale for the decision goes )
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
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
May be his mean that he has experience in .NET 3.5 and using C# programming language and this guy don't know that C# version is different from .NEt version or it can be a typo. I think it does not matter if he is a good programmer and can do program for you. Thanks and Regards, Ajit
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
I've seen "8 years experience in C#".
I've seen companies asking for 8 years experienced candidates in C#. He must go there. Together, they can make deadly combination. :laugh:
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
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!
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
I've seen "8 years experience in C#".
I have at least 27. I'm sure I was having piano lessona back in 1981.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
Member 3552431 wrote:
Like how they went from 98 to 2000 to XP to Vista to ... 7?
Isn't it only code name? Do you think it will be sold as Windows 7?
[My Blog]
"Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn
"Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe -
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
Actually, wouldn't it be slashNet?
Brian ----------------------------------------------- Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out. - Sydney Smith (1771 - 1845) If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon. - George Aiken
-
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
ROFL!!!! Don't you get teased to reply him with a very explanatory reason why you will not interview him so he won't make the same mistake again?
-
May be his mean that he has experience in .NET 3.5 and using C# programming language and this guy don't know that C# version is different from .NEt version or it can be a typo. I think it does not matter if he is a good programmer and can do program for you. Thanks and Regards, Ajit
I disagree, if you want to work with something you must at least know a bit of what you are talking about, it doesn't matter if he is an expert in JAVA and knows nothing of C# if that is what he is going to work with. First, learn the language/tool, then you can go for it. This just proves he "lied" about his expertise and I think that is enough reason to not give him a job.
-
-
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 am certainly in the "no clear understanding" category. WinFX extensions what? I'll have to go read up on that. I'm currently trying to claw my way into gaining some experience with .NET framework 1.1 (it's tough at my company, we don't have enough developers and we're mostly mired in maintenance), but I didn't know that there were multiple version numbers that we need to worry about now. I thought it was bad enough that users need a .NET Framework in order to run our product.
-
Member 3552431 wrote:
Like how they went from 98 to 2000 to XP to Vista to ... 7?
Isn't it only code name? Do you think it will be sold as Windows 7?
[My Blog]
"Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn
"Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne MetcalfeThis is easy to explain. Before Windows 2000, the business OS was just numbered NT {version number}, like NT 3.11, NT 3.5 and NT 4.0. Win 2000 is really NT 5.0. XP is really NT 5.1, and that's when the business OS and the consumer OS came together and the DOS based OS was finally gone. Well, if you can see the trend, Vista is really NT 6 and so the next version would be called 7 internally, later given some not-so-fancy name by marketing. It appears that the jump between major build numbers is hard for people to do. If you remember, back a few (8) years ago, the transition between NT4 to 2000 was pretty significant, just like the transition between XP and Vista is now. And people were slow to adopt Win2k as well. Maybe the difference is that people knew that Win2k was much better than NT4, but people today aren't sold on Vista being much, if any, better than XP. I am in the small minority of people that actually like Vista.
Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you do something and the time you tell a woman what you did. --Dibert My left name is Tremendous Savings, Ms. America – Señor Cardgage
-
I am certainly in the "no clear understanding" category. WinFX extensions what? I'll have to go read up on that. I'm currently trying to claw my way into gaining some experience with .NET framework 1.1 (it's tough at my company, we don't have enough developers and we're mostly mired in maintenance), but I didn't know that there were multiple version numbers that we need to worry about now. I thought it was bad enough that users need a .NET Framework in order to run our product.
Skip 1.1 experience. Start with 2.0. Everything that uses .Net 1.1 is no longer supported practically. Despite the confusion...there's a great reference on what .Net 3.5 is here: .Net 3.5 Namespaces PDF Download[^] In the lower right, you'll see a circle with some colors. That does an excellent job of showing you that .Net 3.5 is .Net 2.0 with "added stuff". I was confused on the subject for a while, but this really cleared it up for me.
-
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
Chris, Here's another confusing bit: WPF 1.0 was part of .NET 3, right? Ok, fine. .NET 3.5 comes out, and now it's called WPF 3.5! Ha! While I agree it's confusing that the CLR, .NET framework, the languages, and the various APIs like WPF all have their own versions that makes it confusing, I do remember devs were complaining that leaving it "WinFX" was confusing. I remember a Slashdot article where everyone was like, "WinFX? What ever happened to .NET? I guess that means .NET failed! Woo! Down with M$!" So I guess I'm not sure of a better way to do this. If the CLR, .NET framework, languages, and APIs all shared the same version number, one could not increment version number without all of them incrementing. Which would mean C# 3 would be the same as C# 2, which seems equally confusing.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Upon this disciple I'll build my new religion? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
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.
Although I've never done any .NET development, I think that WinFX was the original (pre-release) name for version 1 of the .NET framework. It's possible that they released a new product by the same name, but I've never heard of it.
-
This is easy to explain. Before Windows 2000, the business OS was just numbered NT {version number}, like NT 3.11, NT 3.5 and NT 4.0. Win 2000 is really NT 5.0. XP is really NT 5.1, and that's when the business OS and the consumer OS came together and the DOS based OS was finally gone. Well, if you can see the trend, Vista is really NT 6 and so the next version would be called 7 internally, later given some not-so-fancy name by marketing. It appears that the jump between major build numbers is hard for people to do. If you remember, back a few (8) years ago, the transition between NT4 to 2000 was pretty significant, just like the transition between XP and Vista is now. And people were slow to adopt Win2k as well. Maybe the difference is that people knew that Win2k was much better than NT4, but people today aren't sold on Vista being much, if any, better than XP. I am in the small minority of people that actually like Vista.
Success is the happy feeling you get between the time you do something and the time you tell a woman what you did. --Dibert My left name is Tremendous Savings, Ms. America – Señor Cardgage
Me too - the only problem I have with Vista is that my display driver gets a little glitched when I try to connect a projector to the video-out port on my laptop - sometimes I get no signal. For everything else, I love it.
-
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 did get a reply[^] from Jason and some attention in the press[^], but you're right, in the end it didn't do much.
-
Chris, Here's another confusing bit: WPF 1.0 was part of .NET 3, right? Ok, fine. .NET 3.5 comes out, and now it's called WPF 3.5! Ha! While I agree it's confusing that the CLR, .NET framework, the languages, and the various APIs like WPF all have their own versions that makes it confusing, I do remember devs were complaining that leaving it "WinFX" was confusing. I remember a Slashdot article where everyone was like, "WinFX? What ever happened to .NET? I guess that means .NET failed! Woo! Down with M$!" So I guess I'm not sure of a better way to do this. If the CLR, .NET framework, languages, and APIs all shared the same version number, one could not increment version number without all of them incrementing. Which would mean C# 3 would be the same as C# 2, which seems equally confusing.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Upon this disciple I'll build my new religion? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Ah, Slashdot. That bastion of intelligent, thoughtful discussions on Microsoft.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Me too - the only problem I have with Vista is that my display driver gets a little glitched when I try to connect a projector to the video-out port on my laptop - sometimes I get no signal. For everything else, I love it.
Mind you, nVidia did play a huge part in driving Vista's reputation into the ground with their absolutely horrible drivers. Oh, and the fact that people believe Windows hasn't made any technical advancements thanks yet again to the dumb decision to move WinFX to .NET. And yes I do mean a version number of 2010 or what not, not just a product name. .NET supports version number segments of up to 65535, so we might as well.
modified on Thursday, March 13, 2008 4:22 PM
