Thinking about the "WHY's" for using .NET 3.5

[PIEBALDconsult]

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 disabled Tools|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.

[JimmyRopes]

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

[Shog9 0]

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.

[Member 96]

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

[Todd Smith]

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

[Rocky Moore]

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

[PIEBALDconsult]

Those movies seemed a little squirrelly. :~

[Rocky]

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

[Behzad Sedighzadeh]

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

[oooshola]

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!

www.flixgadget.com

[Rocky Moore]

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

[Aiscrim]

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.

[Howard Richards]

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

[JHubSharp]

I 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.

[Lost User]

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 :)

[Michael A Cochran]

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

[programmervb netc]

I agree we upgraded a very large app from Visual Studio 2005 2.0 framework to Visual Studio 2008 3.5 and have had no conversion issues that I can remember.(So if there were any they must not have been bad.)

Humble Programmer

[Jon Rista]

I don't think you understand what a workflow is. Workflow is a very standard part of large enterprise applications where the flexability of a workflow system, such as WF, BizTalk, etc. is essential to developing processes that can adapt to changing business needs in the appropriate timeframes. WF most definitely does not pander to "fake" programmers, on the contrary, it is a system that targets the highly complex, stateful, and usually long-running "workflows" of large organizations. Its far more than just "visual programming", as it is designed to allow operations staff, who tend NOT to be programmers at all, make the necessary adjustments to business processes on a continuous basis. I suggest you educate yourself more before voicing such strong opinions about subjects you don't know much about.

[Jon Rista]

I have been using .NET and C# since the beta days. A lot of people get up in arms over new language features, but I for one have always loved every one. I've used every feature in C# 3.0 and the majority of features provided through .NET 3.5. My perspective is this: C# 3.0 and .NET 3.5 just add new tools to your toolbox. As a programmer, your purpose is to develop a product that meets customer specifications, much like a contracter builds a home for his customer. The more tools in the toolbox just mean you can accomplish all the various little jobs involved in building a product more efficiently, as you have more tools to fit to each task. You mentioned a cost to using .NET 3.5, in such a way that indicates its MORE costly. Given the tool analogy, when you use the right tool for the job, especially one tailored to solving a certain problem, your waste should be reduced, reducing your cost. So long as you use the features of .NET 3.5 at the right time, in the right place, for the right task, you should see an increase in productivity, not a decrease. WCF, WPF, and WF all have a lot to offer, IF you have a need for them (WF in particular can be extremely useful for solving particularly complex business problems, but it should only be used if your problem set is large enough to warrant it). In particular are the LINQ extension methods, which can be used without the new syntax, and can greatly reduce the amount of 'common' code you have to write (i.e. sorting, filtering, aggregating, and other kinds of very common operations can all be performed with the LINQ extension methods, if using the new linq syntax is frightening to you). C# 3.0 also has a lot to offer: Expression trees, LINQ, Lambda Expressions, Extension Methods, Anonymous Types, Auto-Implemented Properties, and Type Initializers are all new tools that simplify your life as a programmer, empower you to solve problems with LESS work and improve the clarity of your code. Just make sure you use the RIGHT tool for the job, and there should be no drawbacks (i.e. don't use 'var' for every variable like many have begun to, as that only reduces the clarity of your code/increases vagaries; use var only for anonymous types.)

[dazfuller]

It depends on what you're up to really but here are my opinions: WPF - Nice but I don't use it WCF - If you're involved in writing different apps this can be a great tool for writing services WWF - POS CardSpace - I can't believe MS thought this was a good idea But like everyone else has said the biggest reason is Linq and lambda expressions. Linq and Linq for XML is great and can be real time savers with the added benefit of making your code easier to read. Linq for SQL is rubbish though if you want any kind of control over your database access, personally I'd avoid it and stick with a data access layer (this also seemed to be the opinion of some MS employees who demoed this a while ago). Lambda expression are cool as well especially if you are using the extension methods (actually there's another good reason as well) for collections. Say you have a list of numbers from 1 to 1000 and you want to sum all of the even ones then you can do this:

int sumOfValues = values.Sum<int>(n => n % 2 == 0 ? n : 0);

It really does make so much stuff so simple. We recently upgraded a .Net 1.1 web app to 3.5 and I really want to go back and re-do some XML work I did a few months back as I know I can make it simpler and easier to maintain. The only thing I will say is if you upgrade to Studio 2008 (which you'll have to if you want the extra IDE support), it is really slow for doing most asp.net stuff and don't switch into mixed or designer mode for pages otherwise you might as well bugger off to make a coffee while you wait for it.