Stability of .NET 2.0
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
Oh yes, and Linq. They really should have put that in .NET 2.0.
Actually, LINQ is in .NET 2.0; that is, all of the LINQ stuff is syntax, no changes were made to CLR. The only thing LINQ requires is a compiler to understand the new syntax (extension methods, lambda expressesions, implicit type declarations, etc.), and a few .NET dlls that contain LINQ-specific queries (System.Query.dll comes to mind). In fact, the LINQ preview currently available runs on an unmodified .NET 2.0 framework. To be technically correct, they should have put support for LINQ in the C# & VB.NET compilers and IDEs. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Morality Apart from God Judah Himango
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
The IDE: -The IDE is more or less what I expected, speed-wise. I seem to recall VS 2003 compiling my code a bit faster than 2005's compiler, but it's been so long since I've used 2003 a great deal, that it's really hard to say whether there's any speed loss. My home projects compile at about the same speed. The IDE UI is nice and responsive, debugging has been a joy. I can't say there's anything sluggish about the IDE's UI; everything seems quite nice and responsive. -So for 2005 has been 100% stable on our large C# solution, which is more than I can say for the betas. But time will tell, really. I just noticed today where I did something not allowed in the VS designer with a custom control, and despite the control freaking out, the designer handled it gracefully and remained stable. They've fixed "The Woe" designer problem from 2003, and it appears they've fixed some of the designer issues I was having with beta 1 & 2. -Yes, the IDE has all the features I wanted. -No problems found with the IDE just yet. The 2.0 framework -stability-wise, I've found nothing wrong with it. It seems quite stable. -It does have all the features I wanted, including some suggestions made to MSDN feedback. -So far, I have found 1 bug related to WinForms programming. Specifically, see here[^] for more info. Not a huge bug, but it seems like it is a bug regardless (unless it's by design, which I can't imagine).
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Morality Apart from God Judah Himango
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Until the RC and now the final release, I couldn't compile a large project because it kept failing to identify project dependencies correctly. The RC fixed that. Keyboard shortcuts, which I set my own, didn't seem to get fixed until the final release. It seems like I can set single key shortcuts now, which was impossible before because it demanded a keystroke chord. As to performance, gads, it seems considerably faster. As to the IDE, I hate (but will get used to) the new task manager. I don't like (but will get used) the overloaded windows, like the Output window with its pulldown to display build vs debug. Just show me both, damn it. And Binding (the class) still doesn't have a default constructor. So, it's there. I'm using it. Generics are ho-hum. Some of the new .NET classes look really useful though. Marc My website Traceract Understanding Simple Data Binding Diary Of A CEO - Preface
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
From my experience with Pro RTM: The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? --> slower - more or less stable than you expected? --> OK - Does it have the features you wanted? --> Many of them - any specific problems found? --> The new dataset editor lacks the ease of the old one. The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? --> As stable as I expected (no problems yet!) - Does it have the features you wanted? --> Most of them - any specific problems found? --> Nope .NET 2.0 is a winner! Carl Mercier Geek entrepreneurs, visit my blog! [^]
-
Until the RC and now the final release, I couldn't compile a large project because it kept failing to identify project dependencies correctly. The RC fixed that. Keyboard shortcuts, which I set my own, didn't seem to get fixed until the final release. It seems like I can set single key shortcuts now, which was impossible before because it demanded a keystroke chord. As to performance, gads, it seems considerably faster. As to the IDE, I hate (but will get used to) the new task manager. I don't like (but will get used) the overloaded windows, like the Output window with its pulldown to display build vs debug. Just show me both, damn it. And Binding (the class) still doesn't have a default constructor. So, it's there. I'm using it. Generics are ho-hum. Some of the new .NET classes look really useful though. Marc My website Traceract Understanding Simple Data Binding Diary Of A CEO - Preface
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I installed Visual Studio Professional RTM version. I am trying to move two C++ projects(no MFC or COM - Pure C++ with a lot of templates and STL) from Visual C++ 6.0 and Visual C++.NET 2003
Chris Maunder wrote:
- slower or faster than you expected?
It is same as Visual Studio.NET 2003
Chris Maunder wrote:
Does it have the features you wanted?
Yes. With the Safe CRT libraries things are much better(though some code modification is needed). Though I would like to get "export" keyword support, I can live with that(I hope they will support that in the next version). A vast improvement for the suppport of STL compared to Visual C++ 6.0.
Chris Maunder wrote:
any specific problems found
Nothing so far..I am rebuilding the project(after making those 'deprecate' warning disapprear !!!) Thanks, Madhu. -- modified at 21:42 Tuesday 1st November, 2005
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
slower or faster than you expected?
Slower than I hoped, but not than I expected.
Chris Maunder wrote:
more or less stable than you expected?
Less - I moved an app from 2003 to 2005, and it crashed about 8-10 times in the few hours I've worked on it
Chris Maunder wrote:
Does it have the features you wanted?
I'm very happy with the new feature set, but it's about the same as beta 2, so far. No surprises
Chris Maunder wrote:
any specific problems found?
Yes, if a user control doesn't initialise properly, the whole IDE drops out and needs restarting The C# 2.0 features all rock, I just wish LINQ was in there... Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
Oh yes, and Linq. They really should have put that in .NET 2.0.
Actually, LINQ is in .NET 2.0; that is, all of the LINQ stuff is syntax, no changes were made to CLR. The only thing LINQ requires is a compiler to understand the new syntax (extension methods, lambda expressesions, implicit type declarations, etc.), and a few .NET dlls that contain LINQ-specific queries (System.Query.dll comes to mind). In fact, the LINQ preview currently available runs on an unmodified .NET 2.0 framework. To be technically correct, they should have put support for LINQ in the C# & VB.NET compilers and IDEs. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Morality Apart from God Judah Himango
Actually, the LINQ preview specifically states it is unsupported, I would not run it on a production compiler. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Actually, the LINQ preview specifically states it is unsupported, I would not run it on a production compiler. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Yeah, definitely. I didn't mean to say you *should* run LINQ on a production 2.0 framework, I guess what I was trying to say was LINQ runs on .NET 2.0 without any changes to the CLR.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Morality Apart from God Judah Himango
-
J. Dunlap wrote:
Oh yes, and Linq. They really should have put that in .NET 2.0.
Actually, LINQ is in .NET 2.0; that is, all of the LINQ stuff is syntax, no changes were made to CLR. The only thing LINQ requires is a compiler to understand the new syntax (extension methods, lambda expressesions, implicit type declarations, etc.), and a few .NET dlls that contain LINQ-specific queries (System.Query.dll comes to mind). In fact, the LINQ preview currently available runs on an unmodified .NET 2.0 framework. To be technically correct, they should have put support for LINQ in the C# & VB.NET compilers and IDEs. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Morality Apart from God Judah Himango
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
I just installed VS2002 for some testing and ohhhhhhhhh dear :sigh: It took forever, required a number of options selected over a period of more than 40 minutes whereas 2005 intalled by itself in a fraction of the time. The tigress is here :-D -- modified at 4:55 Wednesday 2nd November, 2005
-
I'd be interested to know how people have found Visual Studio 2005 and the .NET 2.0 framework. The IDE: - slower or faster than you expected? - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? The 2.0 Framework: - more or less stable than you expected? - Does it have the features you wanted? - any specific problems found? cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Deployment still out of the picture IMHO. So far I have been reluctant to develop anything serious on .NET because I have found the run-time to be hardly deployable. I tested on two machines a bunch of small apps, and what worked on one, miserably failed on the other only because it had a slightly different spec. To make matter worse, Microsoft has refused to deploy .NET 1.x so far with the OS service pack. Well, .NET 2.0 just keeps me wondering. Read for yourself one of the requirements of the .NET 2.0 redist : "Windows Installer 3.0 (except for Windows 98/ME, which require Windows Installer 2.0 or later).". And now just take a look at the Windows Installer 3.0 page : "This download is available to customers running genuine Microsoft Windows. Please click the Continue button to begin Windows validation." Yes, the Windows Genuine Advantage thing. You read it right, in addition to be unable to come up with easy ways to deploy apps consistently across networks or onto individual's machines, .NET 2.0 helds any ISV/developer hostage of the outrageous marketing campaign that is only meant to prove someone's guilty until proven otherwise. Very questionable. Hear me well, I am not saying everybody should keep using pirate versions of Windows, etc. but I guess some of you out there see what this implies, and how much you as a developer will have to get through this only for your potential customers to be able to eventually start your app. You as an ISV now have to document and support all of this if you expect successful deployments. Ironically enough, back in 2002 I predicted in a few codeproject posts (that got slammed) that the .NET "platform" was looking into getting enough critical mass before closing the doors behind passport or some sort of MS tax. To me, .NET is falling under itself. The Windows/Office live announcement of late also confirms that .NET is better off the client for the time being, and that ISVs should start looking for revenue elsewhere now that Microsoft is moving to higher grounds. Don't get me wrong. Developing .NET apps in-house, etc. is probably just fine for many scenarios. But shareware authors, MicroISVs, mid ISVs, all of them are going to have a hard time with this. Don't get me started on ClickOnce : not useabl
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
slower or faster than you expected?
Slower than I hoped, but not than I expected.
Chris Maunder wrote:
more or less stable than you expected?
Less - I moved an app from 2003 to 2005, and it crashed about 8-10 times in the few hours I've worked on it
Chris Maunder wrote:
Does it have the features you wanted?
I'm very happy with the new feature set, but it's about the same as beta 2, so far. No surprises
Chris Maunder wrote:
any specific problems found?
Yes, if a user control doesn't initialise properly, the whole IDE drops out and needs restarting The C# 2.0 features all rock, I just wish LINQ was in there... Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
If you don't mind prerelease software and a warning about that every time you start VS2005.... http://blogs.msdn.com/scottwil/archive/2005/10/31/487558.aspx[^] You are supposed to be able to uninstall it without affecting VS2005; but I haven't tried that yet....I want to play with it some more first :D James