@Microsoft
-
Well, apparently.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
3.5 is a whole framework. 3.0 is a patch. I guess I don't get why you can't put a more up to date framework on your DVD. That's what we did. If the minimum specs to RUN the framework were different, that would be a good reason to target backwards.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
3.5 is a whole framework. 3.0 is a patch
I'm pretty sure both are atop 2.0 (i.e., 3.0 doesn't "patch" 2.0, it is an addition to it, just like 3.5). If you install .NET 3.0 or 3.5, I'm pretty sure .NET 2.0 will also be installed (or will need to already be installed). And I assume .NET 3.5 will include 3.0.
Christian Graus wrote:
I guess I don't get why you can't put a more up to date framework on your DVD.
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD? If on a DVD, I say target the most recent framework and include it on the DVD. If they're going to go through all the trouble of obtaining physical media, you might as well upgrade.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the minimum specs to RUN the framework were different, that would be a good reason to target backwards.
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version. I just said it comes with Vista, so anybody who buys Vista will have this framework installed by default, including the users who don't ever perform upgrades unless they absolutely must (so they'd still be left with 3.0 installed). I'm just talking about what the OP should target... I don't see any problem with targeting 3.0. It may prevent some users from having to perform a download of a new framework (supposing the software is a download). If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
3.5 is a whole framework. 3.0 is a patch
I'm pretty sure both are atop 2.0 (i.e., 3.0 doesn't "patch" 2.0, it is an addition to it, just like 3.5). If you install .NET 3.0 or 3.5, I'm pretty sure .NET 2.0 will also be installed (or will need to already be installed). And I assume .NET 3.5 will include 3.0.
Christian Graus wrote:
I guess I don't get why you can't put a more up to date framework on your DVD.
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD? If on a DVD, I say target the most recent framework and include it on the DVD. If they're going to go through all the trouble of obtaining physical media, you might as well upgrade.
Christian Graus wrote:
If the minimum specs to RUN the framework were different, that would be a good reason to target backwards.
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version. I just said it comes with Vista, so anybody who buys Vista will have this framework installed by default, including the users who don't ever perform upgrades unless they absolutely must (so they'd still be left with 3.0 installed). I'm just talking about what the OP should target... I don't see any problem with targeting 3.0. It may prevent some users from having to perform a download of a new framework (supposing the software is a download). If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I'm pretty sure both are atop 2.0 (i.e., 3.0 doesn't "patch" 2.0, it is an addition to it, just like 3.5).
You're mistaken. 3.0, last I checked, required 2.0 to be there. 3.5 installs the older ones, but is a new version in itself.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD?
I asked and you did not answer me. The fact is, people either have internet to download your program, or they have a DVD.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version.
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?
I've already answered that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I don't believe so. .NET 3.0 was a patch that gave VS it's first ability to create WPF projects. The next IDE along was .NET 3.5.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
that is correct 3.0 gave VS2005 the features such as workflow and WPF VS2008 came with 3.5
As barmey as a sack of badgers
-
So, should I right click -> sort and delete in every code file in Solution or can I PowerCommands [^] to do that for me? Definitely agree with you on "difficult stuff this programming", though.
During development, the time when this annoys you, you will be touching every file in your app so get in the habit of cleaning up your usings. My net nazi got the link, damn.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I'm pretty sure both are atop 2.0 (i.e., 3.0 doesn't "patch" 2.0, it is an addition to it, just like 3.5).
You're mistaken. 3.0, last I checked, required 2.0 to be there. 3.5 installs the older ones, but is a new version in itself.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
When did we assume this is going to be on a DVD?
I asked and you did not answer me. The fact is, people either have internet to download your program, or they have a DVD.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
I never mentioned minimum specs to run the .NET framework for any version.
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
aspdotnetdev wrote:
If the software doesn't require 3.5, why target it and potentially require an extra download (.Net Framework 3.5)?
I've already answered that.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
If somebody has .Net 3.0 installed and your app targets that, they can download and install your app without an additional download. If your app targets .Net 3.5 and the user has .Net 3.0 installed, they will have to download not only your app but .Net 3.5 as well. If .Net 3.5 is indeed its "own framework" with no dependencies on .Net 2.0 as you suggest, that could be a very large download. Preventing the user from having to download something additional (i.e., .Net 3.5) seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to target an older version of the framework (i.e., .Net 3.0).
-
Christian Graus wrote:
No, I did, because it's the only reason I can see to defend what you're suggesting.
If somebody has .Net 3.0 installed and your app targets that, they can download and install your app without an additional download. If your app targets .Net 3.5 and the user has .Net 3.0 installed, they will have to download not only your app but .Net 3.5 as well. If .Net 3.5 is indeed its "own framework" with no dependencies on .Net 2.0 as you suggest, that could be a very large download. Preventing the user from having to download something additional (i.e., .Net 3.5) seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to target an older version of the framework (i.e., .Net 3.0).
Again, it depends on how many of your clients live in the third world and can't get half decent internet access. .NET 3.0, the WPF part at least, was really buggy. Why not target a framework with fixed bugs ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Again, it depends on how many of your clients live in the third world and can't get half decent internet access. .NET 3.0, the WPF part at least, was really buggy. Why not target a framework with fixed bugs ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
it depends on how many of your clients live in the third world
So, basically the majority of people who ask questions in Quick Answers. ;P The point is that there are valid scenarios where one might want to target .Net 3.0. Not that one should always do so when given the choice.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why not target a framework with fixed bugs ?
I've been telling people who use IE6 that for a while now... sometimes they just don't seem to listen. ;) It really depends on your target demographic. Some people don't want to spend the time for a lengthy install and others aren't able to perform an install due to funky IT policies. For any of my personal software, I use the latest and greatest. But that isn't always ideal for corporate software.
-
Yes. You are correct. 3.0 was released during the life of VS2005 to bring WPF etc. VS2008 was released with 3.5.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
This[^] could help you out for such matters. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
-
Create project in Visual Studio 2008, do not use Linq at all and code for three months, then try to Target .NET Framework 3.0...
Yes, been there, done that. And...?
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I personally dislike that it adds that to new files. I rarely ever use it and it clutters up Intellisense (until I get annoyed enough to go and delete it from the top of the file). I wonder if the template for new files can be changed so that that using statement isn't part of it... that'd be nice.
Yes, by modifying the class.cs file in class.zip in the program files directory of whichever VS version. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/steve/archive/2007/04/10/changing-the-default-using-directives-in-visual-studio.aspx[^]
-
Yes, by modifying the class.cs file in class.zip in the program files directory of whichever VS version. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/steve/archive/2007/04/10/changing-the-default-using-directives-in-visual-studio.aspx[^]
I love you.
-
In that case, if you know you will not be using LINQ, target .NET 3.0 right from the start. Don't blame Microsoft for your lack of foresight.
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Henry Minute wrote:
Don't blame Microsoft for your lack of foresight.
WRONG. WHy do I have to make this decision in advance?
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
I love you.
-
Well, apparently.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So, should I right click -> sort and delete in every code file in Solution or can I PowerCommands [^] to do that for me? Definitely agree with you on "difficult stuff this programming", though.
-
This[^] could help you out for such matters. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
Nice link Luc! :thumbsup: Although I can't imagine what sort of anorak would have the time to aggregate such information. :laugh:
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
If it's just the using directive, do a search and replace? If it's just inconvenient having it by default I think there's a way to change the default usings. I've never done it though as it didn't look the simplest thing to do last time I looked into it (I wanted to have "using System.Diagnostics" included by default). My personal linq peeve is the people who insist on constantly "refactoring", replacing the foreach keyword with List.ForEach everywhere, which is slightly harder to read and debug imo, as well as leading to more conflicts when I'm trying to merge my actual changes in.
-
:-\
Predrag Tomasevic wrote:
Definitely agree with you on "difficult stuff this programming", though.
That's why it should be left to professional software engineers
Two heads are better than one.
I can't man... I as a manager must meet deadlines, and whenever I ask "professional software engineer" (I like to call them "programmer" instead) when it will be done, he replies something like: "When it's done". So, I've decided to take matters into my own hands... as numerous management books advised me - action before anything else!
-
I can't man... I as a manager must meet deadlines, and whenever I ask "professional software engineer" (I like to call them "programmer" instead) when it will be done, he replies something like: "When it's done". So, I've decided to take matters into my own hands... as numerous management books advised me - action before anything else!
Good engineers, will explain what's required to finish, it truly is hard to give a definite timescale as some problems or technical hurdles always appear down the line. So if your pressing somebody for a timescale as what steps are required to finish the jobs and a ballpark figure on have long each step will take. This is text book management that all companies use. They will take that information away and probably add/take a percentage on the timescale given. At the proposed step call the team/developer in and ask them if it complete and why not? Then adjust timescales accordingly. Breaking a project down into bite sized pieces is the only way to go, this is from my only person experience in the industry.
Two heads are better than one.