.NET 3.0 Question

To me this version upgrade seems very odd indeed.
Why should we have a new framework version if they are going
to just add
new libraries to the old one? Wouldn't it be easier if those
new
additional packages would be shipped as just an addon to the
.Net
framework version 2 (like many are, as DirectX)? There would
always have
been the time to include those addons as parts of the .Net
framework in
future versions, where the "core" libraries would
be updated too. I
think it would have made much more sense.

Posters, do you agree with me?

Efran Cobisi, cobisi.com

Frans Bouma wrote:
>> I have been reading up on .net 3.0 being released,
I have not
>> installed it yet.  Does anyone know if .net 3.0 is
a superset
>> of .net 2.0 ?  Does it have the .net 2.0 dll's in
it so that
>> I can run my current .net 2.0 Windows Forms app
without
>> having to in stall both .net 2.0 and .net 3.0 ?
>>
>
>         This article sums it up:
> http://msdn.microsoft.co
m/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/netfx30
.asp
>
>         It was confusing the hell out of me too (not if
C# 3.0 was in this package, but if system.dll etc. would get
a new version
> number etc.)
>
>                 FB
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ  http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com

>

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com

I don't agree. These new libraries are just as core as the
rest of the
framework.

-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of development on the .NET platform using
any managed
language [mailtoOTNET-CL
RDISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM] On Behalf Of Efran Cobisi
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:25 AM
To: DOTNET-CLRDISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: Re: [DOTNET-CLR] .NET 3.0 Question

To me this version upgrade seems very odd indeed.
Why should we have a new framework version if they are going
to just add
new libraries to the old one? Wouldn't it be easier if those
new
additional packages would be shipped as just an addon to the
.Net
framework version 2 (like many are, as DirectX)? There would
always have
been the time to include those addons as parts of the .Net
framework in
future versions, where the "core" libraries would
be updated too. I
think it would have made much more sense.

Posters, do you agree with me?

Efran Cobisi, cobisi.com

Frans Bouma wrote:
>> I have been reading up on .net 3.0 being released,
I have not
>> installed it yet.  Does anyone know if .net 3.0 is
a superset
>> of .net 2.0 ?  Does it have the .net 2.0 dll's in
it so that
>> I can run my current .net 2.0 Windows Forms app
without
>> having to in stall both .net 2.0 and .net 3.0 ?
>>
>
>         This article sums it up:
>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de
fault.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html
/netfx30.asp
>
>         It was confusing the hell out of me too (not if
C# 3.0 was in this
package, but if system.dll etc. would get a new version
> number etc.)
>
>                 FB
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR  http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
http://discuss.develop.com

>

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com


===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com

> To me this version upgrade seems very odd indeed.
> Why should we have a new framework version if they are
going
> to just add new libraries to the old one? Wouldn't it
be
> easier if those new additional packages would be
shipped as
> just an addon to the .Net framework version 2 (like
many are,
> as DirectX)? There would always have been the time to
include
> those addons as parts of the .Net framework in future
> versions, where the "core" libraries would be
updated too. I
> think it would have made much more sense.
>
> Posters, do you agree with me?

        100%

        I haven't run into anyone who agreed with MS on the
'3.0' naming of this framework. The framework itself is
versioned '2.0',
as the complete .net 2.0 assemblies are v2.0, so calling it
'3.0' while everything is versioned 2.0 isn't logical.

        But hey, marketing never is, and MS is a marketing
driven company, not a company driven by logic or software
engineering
efforts.

                FB

>
> Efran Cobisi, cobisi.com
>
> Frans Bouma wrote:
> >> I have been reading up on .net 3.0 being
released, I have not
> >> installed it yet.  Does anyone know if .net
3.0 is a
> superset of .net
> >> 2.0 ?  Does it have the .net 2.0 dll's in it
so that I can run my
> >> current .net 2.0 Windows Forms app without
having to in stall both
> >> .net 2.0 and .net 3.0 ?
> >>
> >
> >         This article sums it up:
> >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.
asp?url=/library/en-us/dnlon
> > g/html/netfx30.asp
> >
> >         It was confusing the hell out of me too
(not if C#
> 3.0 was in
> > this package, but if system.dll etc. would get a
new version number
> > etc.)
> >
> >                 FB
> >
> > ===================================
> > This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR  http://www.develop.com
> >
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://discuss.develop.com

> >
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentorR  http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://discuss.develop.com

>

===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentorŪ  http://www.develop.com

View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com