Thinking about the "WHY's" for using .NET 3.5
-
2.0 to 3.5 you cannot justify the change to a beancounter, you never can, for them an abacus is an adequate tool and the cost is about right, miserable sods X| . I think the improved intellisense and Linq are about the only things I am using. In my opinion WPF is not valid for data centric apps and I will be sticking with winforms for a couple of years yet. I have the feeling it will mature dramatically over that period and the learning curve will flatten somewhat. Workflow Services (WWF & WCF combined) is a peice of crap, this is an MS ploy to sell more product, specifically Sharepoint. There are limited real world examples available and you need so many services, databases, hosting services and UI components just to get a form out it is quite painfull. And I hate the drag and drop designer what a POS. I have no opinion on Web stuff as I am 90% winform based. Luckily we have MSDN so the cost of VS is factored in and there is no real cost for us to move until we get into WPF. 2008 & 2005 reside happily on the same development box so it has been a very easy, low cost transition for us.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Workflow Services (WWF & WCF combined) is a peice of crap, this is an MS ploy to sell more product, specifically Sharepoint.
SharePoint rocks! If you used SahrePoint 2003 you probably think SahrePoint is a POS but SharePoint 2007 is a vast improvement and is a very workable product. There are still some improvements that would be nice, and I am sure they will eventually be incorporated, but all in all SharePoint 2007 (more specifically MOSS 2007) is a viable collaboration solution, especially if you also use Office 2007. I would have to agree that the canned workflows are a POS but I write custom web parts and workflows and that is where I get very creative.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
I can see a use for WCF (if they make it easier on the programmer), but WWF is nothing more than pandering to non-programmers by allowing them to assemble custom-ordered "activities" (written by *real* programmers) without having to write any code. I still don't see a need for WPF (in my current situation, anyway).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
WWF is nothing more than pandering to non-programmers by allowing them to assemble custom-ordered "activities" (written by *real* programmers) without having to write any code
I agree that the canned workflows are a POS but I write custom web parts and workflows in VS2008 and that is where I get creative with what can be accomplished.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Workflow Services (WWF & WCF combined) is a peice of crap, this is an MS ploy to sell more product, specifically Sharepoint.
SharePoint rocks! If you used SahrePoint 2003 you probably think SahrePoint is a POS but SharePoint 2007 is a vast improvement and is a very workable product. There are still some improvements that would be nice, and I am sure they will eventually be incorporated, but all in all SharePoint 2007 (more specifically MOSS 2007) is a viable collaboration solution, especially if you also use Office 2007. I would have to agree that the canned workflows are a POS but I write custom web parts and workflows and that is where I get very creative.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesActually I don't have an issue with Sharepoint, my problem is that I work for a large organisation and there is at least 3 years of inertia for anything on the Enterprise level and that has been excersabated by the current financial sitution so I can't get to play with the new toys. The nly reason we can move to 2008 stuff is if it is for the department only. I do dislike the way MS is tightly integrating all their products. SQL BI for instance requires both office 2007 and sharepoint, sharepoint requires exchange server and the list goes on. We had an estimate for the upgrade and it was in the millions so it brick walled it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
I write mostly Windows Services and console programs with C#, with a few WinForms applications thrown in. (I'd like to do some WebServices, but I can't get a handle on it. Web development is black magic.) The only part of .net 3.5 I use is
System.Collections.Generic.Hashset; it doesn't have all the features I'd like (e.g. operators), but it provides what I need in most situations. I occasionally write an Extension Method (in fact I wrote one yesterday), just as a toy; several of the more experienced developers here and elsewhere [weasel words] agree that Extension Methods are generally a bad idea. And I don't like how they were implemented in C#. I have no use for Linq or any of that other stuff. I use VS 2008 SP1 when I need to do something in WinForms, otherwise I use command line tools... just to prove a point. :-D I haven't experienced the problems others have reported with VS (in any version), but SP1 added a "feature" I really detest (though others seem to like it) -- it compiles in the background as you type and underlines semantic errors; it's not as bad as when VBA pops up a message when I edit an Excel macro, but it's darn close and I don't want to waste the clock cycles (both hardware and wetware), I prefer the old behaviour, so I disabledTools|Options|Text Editor|C#|Advanced|Show live semantic errors, which helps. I've never had to pay for VS (I get it via my employer's MSDN and at launch events) so I can't speak about pricing. Otherwise I'd use the Express edition, I see no reason to buy a cow when I can get the milk for free. -
Actually I don't have an issue with Sharepoint, my problem is that I work for a large organisation and there is at least 3 years of inertia for anything on the Enterprise level and that has been excersabated by the current financial sitution so I can't get to play with the new toys. The nly reason we can move to 2008 stuff is if it is for the department only. I do dislike the way MS is tightly integrating all their products. SQL BI for instance requires both office 2007 and sharepoint, sharepoint requires exchange server and the list goes on. We had an estimate for the upgrade and it was in the millions so it brick walled it.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
sharepoint requires exchange server
Not in my experience. I have 2 SharePoint Servers (Win2003 Server [IIS Server], SQL Server 2005, MOSS 2007) running and have worked on 1 other system that didn't have Exchange Server or Office 2007 running. There may be some features that require Exchange Server but you can have a robust SharePoint installation without it. The system (MOSS 2007) that used Office 2003 worked just fine. Although we couldn't do some of the collaboration you could in Office 2007 we certainly were able to implement a lot of functionality and the collaboration functionality took place in SharePoint instead of being able to implement it in either SharePoint or Office 2007. Beware of sales people, they will try to sell you as much as they can.
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
I do dislike the way MS is tightly integrating all their products.
I don't dislike that because it gives you a lot of functionality. What I do dislike is how M$ blocks other vendors from tight integration with their products.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
Rocky# wrote:
So why use 3.5 at all?
Because Microsoft sez so. You got a problem with that? :rolleyes: Seriously, if you don't see the use in it, if no one on your team can or wants to convince you that it's worthwhile, then what difference does it make what the rest of us think? Use what you need to get your job done, don't worry so much about chasing trends (obviously, writing a new app in VB6 is bad since the tool and libraries are unsupported, but .NET 2.0 should be around for a while... at very least, as a part of .NET 3.5).
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
I was in the same boat, doing .net 2.0, not using linq, wpf, xaml etc and still no plans to do so. I upgraded to .net 3.5 because the 3rd party tools we use required it and in the end I though "what the hell" anyway, no reason not to be using the latest.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
Try and get a ASP.NET MVC project approved :D We're lucky in that our next project, which is a rewrite of the current *cough* Access *cough* system, will get to benefit from several of the latest technologies including Linq, asp.net mvc, wcf, and .net 3.5 language enhancements along with TDD and DDD.
Todd Smith
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
Rocky# wrote:
how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean,
I am assuming by cost, you are referring on moving from VS 2005 to VS 2008. If that is the cost that are holding you back, I guess it would depend on how many installations you have to upgrade. In 2010 there will be a new version with 4.0 coming out and yet another upgrade. If you are doing web work though and the tools are the issue, you might be able to use the free versions and still code for 3.5 with no additional costs. They have some limitations but it depends on the type os applications you build. There are a number of nice features in both the 3.5 and VS 2008 but not worth putting a crunch on a business to obtain them.
Rocky# wrote:
PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well. Rocky
Yo! Adrian! Just had to, I have lived with that since the "Rocky" movies came out :)
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Happy New Year Wishes for 2009! Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
Rocky# wrote:
how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean,
I am assuming by cost, you are referring on moving from VS 2005 to VS 2008. If that is the cost that are holding you back, I guess it would depend on how many installations you have to upgrade. In 2010 there will be a new version with 4.0 coming out and yet another upgrade. If you are doing web work though and the tools are the issue, you might be able to use the free versions and still code for 3.5 with no additional costs. They have some limitations but it depends on the type os applications you build. There are a number of nice features in both the 3.5 and VS 2008 but not worth putting a crunch on a business to obtain them.
Rocky# wrote:
PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well. Rocky
Yo! Adrian! Just had to, I have lived with that since the "Rocky" movies came out :)
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Happy New Year Wishes for 2009! Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
Those movies seemed a little squirrelly. :~
-
Try and get a ASP.NET MVC project approved :D We're lucky in that our next project, which is a rewrite of the current *cough* Access *cough* system, will get to benefit from several of the latest technologies including Linq, asp.net mvc, wcf, and .net 3.5 language enhancements along with TDD and DDD.
Todd Smith
yes that's very right. I'm also focusing on two things mainly now. ASP .NET MVC and LINQ. I hope we get a project approved in that. I really appreciate all you guys for the answers, really was a useful discussion. What I've learned so far is that you can get the cost down if you use the Express version and the Framework itself is still free anyway. Apart from that, I'm a little unaware of the hosting costs for a .NET 3.5 website, I guess it must be a little higher than a .NET 2.0 website but not that much. Yes, the issue with the support is also important so that's another reason for them to choose the latest rather than go in the past, that another important point there! And apart from that I'll also try and get started with MS Sharepoint 2007. Thank you everyone,
Rocky My Blog
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
of all, what kind of application your are writing? Web? Desktop? RIA? web service? Look at the .Net 3.5 architecture in the link below. http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/swiss_dpe_team/WindowsLiveWriter/Migratingfrom.NET1.1to2.03.0and3.5_9C76/image_2.png[^] We all know .net 2.0 is the best.Is the core, so i think it is mostly PM's need to sell more product; to say customers "we work with latest technologies!". So it is your ability(art!) to convince him not using .NET 3.5!
Behzad
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
You should not have to factor hosting cost differences between 2.0 and 3.5. At this stage in time, 3.5 is so widely adopted by hosting companies that if they still only provide 2.0, then they suck :) Plus, since the framework is free and all 2.0 programs/websites work seamlessly on a 3.5 framework, there won't be any cost differences with hosts, and there won't be any compatibility problems (you might need to change a couple of things in web.config if targeting a 2.0 app to the 3.5 framework, but VS2008 does this for you automatically). Additionally, I don't think you'll be able to find a reputable host anyway that does not allow you to target 1.1, 2.0, and 3.5 all within the same Windows hosting plan. In general, simply using 3.5 shouldn't cost you anything except for the cost of VS2008 (if you buy the full version instead of express). Also, I'm interested in why people say that extension methods are a bad idea? I've used them successfully before, but maybe I'm missing some sort of caveat? Thanks!
-
Those movies seemed a little squirrelly. :~
Yeah, I also got all those "If you are Rocky I would hate to see Bullwinkle" lines... :) http://www.rockyandbullwinkle.com/[^]
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Happy New Year Wishes for 2009! Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
LINQ and WPF are really worth the shift, for two different reasons: with LINQ you can do the same things you do with ADO.NET, but you do it in half the time, maybe less; with WPF you can get things that with WinForms simply you cannot get. This is true for projects starting from scratch... the porting of old projects to 3.5 is almost meaningless, imho. There is also a good reason not to use .NET 3.5, depending on your project: .NET 3.5 is not supported by old operating systems, so if your software must be running in Windows 2000, you have no choice but keep using the framework 2.0.
-
Of all new features in 3.5, I can say one is well worth the upgrade: LINQ. Also there are things like partial methods,
var, and other C# things that I use quite often. The bad thing is the framework downlaod is bigger. If you are writing server apps (ASP.NET), then there's nothing against using 3.5. If you are writing a client application (WinForms/WPF), you'll need your users to isntall the FX 3.5 (it doesn't come with Vista or through Windows Update AFAIK). Happy new year!! :)Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico My Blog!
Totally agree - if you upgrade for one feature it's gotta be LINQ. You find yourself using it all the time (not just for database or XML)
'Howard
-
I can see a use for WCF (if they make it easier on the programmer), but WWF is nothing more than pandering to non-programmers by allowing them to assemble custom-ordered "activities" (written by *real* programmers) without having to write any code. I still don't see a need for WPF (in my current situation, anyway).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I have to disagree here. WCF is incredibly useful if you're doing any kind of app-to-app communication other than consuming your own web services. Interoperability, non-http chatter, and the control you get over the wire all are pretty nice. We have a web service that has to be consumed by a Java client with very specific requirements that was much easier to do with WCF than ASMX. Also, WCF serialization is much better than the serialization done by ASMX in my opinion. We have a production app using WF right now. I'd be a liar if I said it was the greatest tool in the world, but when dealing with state machines and a persistent process where multiple users have to interact with the message, it does have its uses and I think ultimately we chose the right technology (even if we didn't architect it too well initially). WF's big hurdles are the learning curve, the extremely poor performance of the designer, and the fact that it's easy to screw things up. It's not the best API in the world, which is why I think MS is almost starting over with 4.0. But I wouldn't call it crap either. Like others have said though, LINQ is huge. Even if you're not doing anything other than LINQ to Objects (which is all we've been able to implement thus far) it's a huge productivity boost once you learn it. I'd still stay away from the data side until MS figures out what it's doing with EF and what future LINQ to SQL has, but LINQ to Objects and LINQ to XML are both fantastic tools.
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
You are doing well on a well-supported platform? What "NEED" are you going to fulfill by moving to something else? What is your customer going to gain from it, and what's going to convince that customer to chip out some more cash? There are still VB6-projects out there that just aren't moving to .NET, because they sell fine, the way they are. If it ain't broken, don't fix it :)
I are troll :)
-
Hello everyone and a happy new year to all of you. Well, I'm part of a team that is mainly working in .NET 2.0 and we've been talking about taking up 3.5 now and some one just put up a question (and this is from a business point of view!), Why shift over to .NET 3.5? And well, I understand that there are lots of new features in this, LINQ, WPF, XAML etc and so forth... but still the question remains that almost all the general features required by a business can be handles pretty good with ASP .NET 2.0, you can build a pretty good website with AJAX support and everything so how can we motivate someone to use a solution built in 3.5. I'm a Software Engineer not a PM but still I wonder, how can u convince some one to use a more costly solution .NET 3.5 where they can get it done in a bit cheaper cost if they opt for .NET 2.0. I mean, .NET 1.1 had a lot of issues but 2.0 was pretty neat. So why use 3.5 at all? Please shed some light on this issue, Regards, PS: Although I'm mostly involved with web development but I'd really appreciate some one touching on other issues as well.
Rocky My Blog
3.5 is essentially a layered add-on to 2.0. In particular, for an ASP.Net application, upgrading to 3.5 is as simple as changing the runtime target. And, of course, making sure all your runtime environments are upgraded to 3.5. For that simple change, you get access to LINQ, WPF, WCF, better Silverlight support, better integration with office 2007, and a host of other niceities. Using them or not, is, of course, up to you. I upgraded our (very extensive) ASP.Net application to 3.5 the day after 3.5 went GA. Why? Because I could and it let me stay at least ON the curve instead of behind it as usual. It didn't really cost anything (for either me or my customers) and I have access to the many new features in 3.5 - some of which, I have found uses for since upgrading. If there is any one thing you have to be aware of is the 3.5 CLR is not supported on Win2K server - the minimum support level is Win2k3. This could be a "cost" as it might require you to upgrade infrastructure. MAC
