|
dev
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
.Net Framework 3.0 announcedI didn't want folks to miss this.
http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx -- --- Nick Malik [Microsoft] MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not representative of my employer. I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a programmer helping programmers. -- Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote:
> I didn't want folks to miss this. Ah yes, the ".NET Framework 3.0" that is actually Framework 2.0 plus> > http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx WinFX, with no actual CLR changes at all. Don't you just love marketing! -- Larry Lard Replies to group please Larry Lard wrote:
> Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote: Yes, especially given the fact that 1.0 -> 1.1 did introduce underlying> > I didn't want folks to miss this. > > > > http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx > > Ah yes, the ".NET Framework 3.0" that is actually Framework 2.0 plus > WinFX, with no actual CLR changes at all. Don't you just love > marketing! > > -- > Larry Lard > Replies to group please changes (nowt like the leap to 2.0 though), I'd have expected it to be 2.1. I guess they figure that they're vastly expanding the framework libraries, so that counts (or some other such logic). Does anyone have any figures on the number of classes available in the various versions of the framework? Damien But, the additions of LINQ, WinFX, etc. is a big change. Of course, they
could have just called it .NET Framework 2.0+. Oh, wait, they stopped using the + years ago. -- Show quoteGregory A. Beamer ************************************************* Think Outside the Box! ************************************************* "Larry Lard" <larryl***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1150361760.692693.25910@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Nick Malik [Microsoft] wrote: >> I didn't want folks to miss this. >> >> http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx > > Ah yes, the ".NET Framework 3.0" that is actually Framework 2.0 plus > WinFX, with no actual CLR changes at all. Don't you just love > marketing! > > -- > Larry Lard > Replies to group please > Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote:
> But, the additions of LINQ, WinFX, etc. is a big change. Of course, they The introduction of LINQ would, I agree, be a big change. But this> could have just called it .NET Framework 2.0+. Oh, wait, they stopped using > the + years ago. doesn't include that! LINQ is part of 'Orcas', the next version of the CLR and VS. This renaming of WinFX to .NET Framework 3.0 doesn't actually include any changes to what we used to call 'the .NET Framework'. To quote the blog post (my emphases): " The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET, WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR, [ie *everything we already have*] as well as new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS: [what used to be called Avalon, Indigo, etc] " Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope. Which is pure marketing. -- Larry Lard Replies to group please Well, yes I agree it's marketing...branding... whatever you want to call it.
It is obviously a purposeful name change meant by Microsoft to convey something. I really don't have a problem with that per se. But it does seem to be to be an invitation for confusion and weirdness though - will an application developed with 2.0 of the framework still run with 3.0 of the framework as long as you don't use any WinFX namespaces? Or is MS going to actually bump the version on the existing framework libraries even though there won't really be any changes there? Show quote "Larry Lard" <larryl***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1150449201.727433.217690@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > > Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, > WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number > to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope. > Which is pure marketing. > > -- > Larry Lard > Replies to group please > > Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, I wouldn't say that. The core of the Framework is the CLR and CLI, which are > WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number > to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope. > Which is pure marketing. the basis (at least partially) of WCF, WCS, and WF. Each of these technologies presents a full .Net API. The concept of "Framework" is similar philosophically to the concept of "Plaform," meaning an infrastructure that can be built upon. I actually think the name is appropriate, and less confusing than having a whole new buzz term to memorize. And I would venture to guess that it also indicates a further migration of the Windows platform to the .Net platform, a process which it seems Microsoft is taking incrementally. -- Show quoteHTH, Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist A lifetime is made up of Lots of short moments. "Larry Lard" <larryl***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1150449201.727433.217690@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... > > Cowboy (Gregory A. Beamer) wrote: >> But, the additions of LINQ, WinFX, etc. is a big change. Of course, they >> could have just called it .NET Framework 2.0+. Oh, wait, they stopped >> using >> the + years ago. > > The introduction of LINQ would, I agree, be a big change. But this > doesn't include that! LINQ is part of 'Orcas', the next version of the > CLR and VS. This renaming of WinFX to .NET Framework 3.0 doesn't > actually include any changes to what we used to call 'the .NET > Framework'. To quote the blog post (my emphases): > > " > The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of > > the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET, > WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR, > [ie *everything we already have*] > > as well as > > new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS: > [what used to be called Avalon, Indigo, etc] > " > > Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET, > WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number > to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope. > Which is pure marketing. > > -- > Larry Lard > Replies to group please > Hi Nick. Will it be true that *no fixes or updates will be applied to core
2.0 at all? I would have bet yall would need/want to change some things for the new release. BTW - I don't have an issue with the version number (some seem to think the sky is falling). -- Show quoteWilliam Stacey [MVP] "Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <nickmalik@hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message news:T9qdnTc8e4A0hwzZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@comcast.com... |I didn't want folks to miss this. | | http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx | | | -- | --- Nick Malik [Microsoft] | MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster | http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik | | Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not | representative of my employer. | I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a | programmer helping programmers. | -- | |  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics