|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Learning asp.net framework -- what version? use 1.1 or 2.0 / VS.Net 2003 or 2005 ???Hi all,
I'm just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework, and I currently have Visual Studio.Net 2003. I keep reading Visual Studio.Net 2005 is out, so should I try to get this instead of using 2003? Also is 2003 using ASP.Net 1.1 and 2005 using 2.0? Just checking -- I'm a rookie when it comes to this since I'm just now starting to learn how everything ties into everything else. Thanks --- Sam Hi Sam,
VS.Net 2003 works with .Net Framework 1.1 apps, and VS.Net 2005 works with ..Net Framework 2.0 apps. If you're just starting out learning, I don't see why you should spring for the new version, unless you can afford it. It has some features, classes, etc., that are not available on the 1.1 Platform. But if you're just starting out, I don't know that you will want to, for example, get into Generics. Once you've got some experience under your belt, for sure, get the new version. You can use both on the same machine. -- Show quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer A watched clock never boils. "Alex" <sama***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131134743.251385.323380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Hi all, > > I'm just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework, and > I currently have Visual Studio.Net 2003. I keep reading Visual > Studio.Net 2005 is out, so should I try to get this instead of using > 2003? Also is 2003 using ASP.Net 1.1 and 2005 using 2.0? Just > checking -- I'm a rookie when it comes to this since I'm just now > starting to learn how everything ties into everything else. > > Thanks --- > > Sam > Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something old
with lots of deprecated classes and methods ??? And there is no need to buy Visual Studio at all, you have the free express versions downlodable on their website (still beta right now) and there are a bunch of command line tools in the framework sdk so you can use notepad if you like that ;-) PL. Show quote "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> skrev i meddelandet news:uIaJs8X4FHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hi Sam, > > VS.Net 2003 works with .Net Framework 1.1 apps, and VS.Net 2005 works with .Net Framework 2.0 apps. If you're just starting out > learning, I don't see why you should spring for the new version, unless you can afford it. It has some features, classes, etc., > that are not available on the 1.1 Platform. But if you're just starting out, I don't know that you will want to, for example, get > into Generics. Once you've got some experience under your belt, for sure, get the new version. You can use both on the same > machine. > > -- > HTH, > > Kevin Spencer > Microsoft MVP > .Net Developer > A watched clock never boils. > > "Alex" <sama***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131134743.251385.323380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> Hi all, >> >> I'm just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework, and >> I currently have Visual Studio.Net 2003. I keep reading Visual >> Studio.Net 2005 is out, so should I try to get this instead of using >> 2003? Also is 2003 using ASP.Net 1.1 and 2005 using 2.0? Just >> checking -- I'm a rookie when it comes to this since I'm just now >> starting to learn how everything ties into everything else. >> >> Thanks --- >> >> Sam >> > > > Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something You may disagree, but calling my argument "stupid" is just.... well, stupid.> old > with lots of deprecated classes and methods ??? "Stupid" is a characterization, not an argument. It provides no information upon which it is based. Perhaps you would be better suited to a life of politics. As to why he should buy Visual Studio, I have no idea why he should buy it. He already has it. I was simply answering his question. I was not venturing an opinion on the merits of owning it. His question was whether he should buy a newer version. You, on the other hand, would have him abandon a full-featured set of tools for the .Net 1.1 framework for a severely crippled set of tools for the .Net 2.0 framework. He's a novice, by his own admission. From my experience, I would say that he needs all the help he can get. I have been using the .Net 2.0 Framework for about a year now. I'm well aware of the changes. For someone starting out, these changes are relatively meaningless. He has enough to master for now. And he can always spend his money later if he likes. Or not. At least that is the logical foundation for the statements I made. The statements were based upon his questions, and upon the limited amount of information he provided, combined with my own experience in the business. If that's "stupid," I wonder why I make the kind of money I do? Now off with you, you vaccuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert! -- Show quote;-), Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer A watched clock never boils. "PL" <pbl***@yahoo.se> wrote in message news:u4QnhYz4FHA.696@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something > old > with lots of deprecated classes and methods ??? > > And there is no need to buy Visual Studio at all, you have the free > express versions > downlodable on their website (still beta right now) and there are a bunch > of command > line tools in the framework sdk so you can use notepad if you like that > ;-) > > PL. > > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> skrev i meddelandet > news:uIaJs8X4FHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> Hi Sam, >> >> VS.Net 2003 works with .Net Framework 1.1 apps, and VS.Net 2005 works >> with .Net Framework 2.0 apps. If you're just starting out learning, I >> don't see why you should spring for the new version, unless you can >> afford it. It has some features, classes, etc., that are not available on >> the 1.1 Platform. But if you're just starting out, I don't know that you >> will want to, for example, get into Generics. Once you've got some >> experience under your belt, for sure, get the new version. You can use >> both on the same machine. >> >> -- >> HTH, >> >> Kevin Spencer >> Microsoft MVP >> .Net Developer >> A watched clock never boils. >> >> "Alex" <sama***@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1131134743.251385.323380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework, and >>> I currently have Visual Studio.Net 2003. I keep reading Visual >>> Studio.Net 2005 is out, so should I try to get this instead of using >>> 2003? Also is 2003 using ASP.Net 1.1 and 2005 using 2.0? Just >>> checking -- I'm a rookie when it comes to this since I'm just now >>> starting to learn how everything ties into everything else. >>> >>> Thanks --- >>> >>> Sam >>> >> >> > > Nice argumentation, I'm impressed!
Show quote "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message news:u0U89j04FHA.2092@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >> Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something >> old >> with lots of deprecated classes and methods ??? > > You may disagree, but calling my argument "stupid" is just.... well, > stupid. > > "Stupid" is a characterization, not an argument. It provides no > information upon which it is based. Perhaps you would be better suited to > a life of politics. > > As to why he should buy Visual Studio, I have no idea why he should buy > it. He already has it. I was simply answering his question. I was not > venturing an opinion on the merits of owning it. His question was whether > he should buy a newer version. > > You, on the other hand, would have him abandon a full-featured set of > tools for the .Net 1.1 framework for a severely crippled set of tools for > the .Net 2.0 framework. He's a novice, by his own admission. From my > experience, I would say that he needs all the help he can get. I have been > using the .Net 2.0 Framework for about a year now. I'm well aware of the > changes. For someone starting out, these changes are relatively > meaningless. He has enough to master for now. And he can always spend his > money later if he likes. Or not. > > At least that is the logical foundation for the statements I made. The > statements were based upon his questions, and upon the limited amount of > information he provided, combined with my own experience in the business. > If that's "stupid," I wonder why I make the kind of money I do? > > Now off with you, you vaccuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert! > > -- > ;-), > > Kevin Spencer > Microsoft MVP > .Net Developer > A watched clock never boils. > > "PL" <pbl***@yahoo.se> wrote in message > news:u4QnhYz4FHA.696@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> >> Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something >> old >> with lots of deprecated classes and methods ??? >> >> And there is no need to buy Visual Studio at all, you have the free >> express versions >> downlodable on their website (still beta right now) and there are a bunch >> of command >> line tools in the framework sdk so you can use notepad if you like that >> ;-) >> >> PL. >> >> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> skrev i meddelandet >> news:uIaJs8X4FHA.1864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >>> Hi Sam, >>> >>> VS.Net 2003 works with .Net Framework 1.1 apps, and VS.Net 2005 works >>> with .Net Framework 2.0 apps. If you're just starting out learning, I >>> don't see why you should spring for the new version, unless you can >>> afford it. It has some features, classes, etc., that are not available >>> on the 1.1 Platform. But if you're just starting out, I don't know that >>> you will want to, for example, get into Generics. Once you've got some >>> experience under your belt, for sure, get the new version. You can use >>> both on the same machine. >>> >>> -- >>> HTH, >>> >>> Kevin Spencer >>> Microsoft MVP >>> .Net Developer >>> A watched clock never boils. >>> >>> "Alex" <sama***@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:1131134743.251385.323380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I'm just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework, and >>>> I currently have Visual Studio.Net 2003. I keep reading Visual >>>> Studio.Net 2005 is out, so should I try to get this instead of using >>>> 2003? Also is 2003 using ASP.Net 1.1 and 2005 using 2.0? Just >>>> checking -- I'm a rookie when it comes to this since I'm just now >>>> starting to learn how everything ties into everything else. >>>> >>>> Thanks --- >>>> >>>> Sam >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > LOL, in what way ? He is saying to someone else to learn an older API
because he thinks the changes in .NET 2.0 are meaningless. The argumentation is stupid because it's wrong from the start and based merely on his own personal preferences. PL "Lloyd Dupont" <net.galador@ld> skrev i meddelandet news:evQVp204FHA.3292@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... <snip>> Nice argumentation, I'm impressed! > > "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message news:u0U89j04FHA.2092@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >>> Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something > He is saying to someone else to learn an older API I said no such thing. You *interpreted* my exact words, which were exactly > because he thinks the changes in .NET 2.0 are meaningless. what I wanted to say. Let me quote *exactly* what I *did* say, to remind you. "For someone starting out, these changes are relatively meaningless." Now, as you seem to have trouble understanding plain English, let me parse the sentence for you: "For someone starting out..." This phrase is a qualifier for the rest of the statement. It indicates that the following statement is true for "someone starting out," *not* universally true. To further explain the meaning of this, let me explain why this is true. Someone who is "just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework," has quite a lot on their plate to learn. The OP did not specify whether or not he had any prior experience in programming, but if he did, he only had experience with VB6. The difference between VB6 and VB.Net is incredible, and just learning the language, object-orientation, strong data typing, and the Framework itself (not to mention the CLR, which one can only so much of anyway) is going to take awhile. And these are the basics. They have not changed since version 1.1. In addition, he wants to learn ASP.Net. While it is true that ASP.Net has had some enhancements, he will have a time understanding the ASP.Net environment, HTTP, web servers, virtual directories, HTML, Cookies, JavaScript, etc., and that will take some time as well. These are the basics. Learning about Generics, Anymous Functions, Master Pages, new classes, etc., can wait. "...these changes are relatively meaningless." The word "relatively" is an adjective or qualifier for the statement as well. While you seem to think that I made a sweeping generalization, I used 2 distinct qualfiers for the remark, and without these 2 qualifiers, the remark takes on a different meaning (the meaning you "read into" it). In this case "relatively" means "compared to the more general and universal understanding that is a pre-requisite for 'someone starting out' to master." It means that in the scope of the entire body of knowledge that must be assimilated, the changes referenced are so small as to be ("for those starting out") meaningless. It does *not* mean that they are absolutely meaningless, unimportant, or nice to have. I have been using Generics, for example, for quite some time now. But I got along fine without them. I got along fine without anonymous methods, and Master Pages. As an analogy, I recently bought a new car. It has quite a few features that my old car did not have. It gets better gas mileage, has a CD player, performs better, automatically locks its doors, and automatically turns its headlights on and off, depending on the amount of ambient light. But I was quite able to drive my old car to and from anywhere I can go in my new car. And for someone learning to drive, who already has a car, well, having a new car might be nice, but he's not likely to use many of the new features until he figures out how to drive. > The argumentation is stupid because it's wrong from the start and based And there you go again with your favorite characterization. Well, if you're > merely on his own personal preferences. *not* stupid, how about making an argument, and backing it up with some logic? You might start by learning a little reading comprehension. Kids these days! -- Show quoteKevin Spencer Microsoft MVP ..Net Developer A watched clock never boils. "PL" <pbl***@yahoo.se> wrote in message news:O2ckMZ64FHA.3540@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > > LOL, in what way ? He is saying to someone else to learn an older API > because he thinks the changes in .NET 2.0 are meaningless. > > The argumentation is stupid because it's wrong from the start and based > merely on his own personal preferences. > > PL > > > "Lloyd Dupont" <net.galador@ld> skrev i meddelandet > news:evQVp204FHA.3292@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> Nice argumentation, I'm impressed! >> >> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message >> news:u0U89j04FHA.2092@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... >>>> Stupid argument, so if he is starting out why should he learn something > <snip> > ASP.NET 2.0 is vastly simplified and improved over 1.1
I would go for 2.0 On the other hand Desktop development havn't change much. Show quote "Alex" <sama***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1131134743.251385.323380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Hi all, > > I'm just setting out to learn VB.Net to use with ASP.Net Framework, and > I currently have Visual Studio.Net 2003. I keep reading Visual > Studio.Net 2005 is out, so should I try to get this instead of using > 2003? Also is 2003 using ASP.Net 1.1 and 2005 using 2.0? Just > checking -- I'm a rookie when it comes to this since I'm just now > starting to learn how everything ties into everything else. > > Thanks --- > > Sam >  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics