Re: net 3 replaces net 1?

Nick,

Were did you check this, at office. I hope (and know) that this is not an
official message from Microsoft.

I am really very much in doubt if it is true, Microsoft has promished with
the start of the frameworks that they would not create again a new kind and
even worse DLL hell., It would be contantly downwards compatible, we the
exception of the development part. What is logic, because than it would be
in fact upwards compatibility..

Cor


"Nick Malik [Microsoft]" <nickmalik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schreef in bericht
news:YPidnbL5G4nvHRDYnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Cor,

"Cor Ligthert [MVP]" <notmyfirstname@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Om$iek$IHHA.816@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter,

Are you sure of that?

Peter is correct. If an app is compiled for 1.1, and you are a 'user' of
that app, then you have to keep 1.1 installed on your machine. If you are
the 'author/programmer' of that app, on the other hand, you can install a
newer version of visual studio, recompile, and then consume .net 2.0 or
.net 3.0 (which is the addition of a slew of classes to .net 2.0). In
that case, the new DLL you create would not need .net 1.1.


In my idea would 2.0 replace completely version 1.x the problem is that
there are some bugs in that area or better no backward compatiblity of
old bugs was concerned in.

I think you are asking why some issues were not 'addressed' when 2.0 was
released. The reason being that those issues are nearly all involved in
"tradeoffs in behavior."

In other words, a class could behave in mechanism (1) or mechanism (2).
Mechanism (1) was chosen and has side effect (x). People who don't like
side effect (x) would prefer that MS had chosen mechanism (2). However,
other developers who don't experience side effect (x) or don't care about
it have written code that depends on Mechanism (1). Therefore, switching
to Mechanism (2) in the 2.0 version of the framework would break backwards
compatibility.

There are always tradeoffs. That is life. I think the basic premise goes
something like this: You are always free to write a new class that
implements Mechanism (2) and make it available as part of a third-party
library. MS had to pick one. Picking two is bad.


Maybe is that the reason that I get now on bug reports to much messages
in my eyes that say that they cannot be resolved because of backward
compatibility.

Cor


I hope that helps,


--
--- 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.
--




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Future of Native Apps?
    ... >>> compatibility. ... > Are you telling me that: "Microsoft is not keen on backward technology ... > because latest technology need latest compiler to be compiled"? ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: net 3 replaces net 1?
    ... that app, then you have to keep 1.1 installed on your machine. ... there are some bugs in that area or better no backward compatiblity of old ... bugs was concerned in. ... compatibility. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • RE: Compatibility Mode XP SP2
    ... suggestion and feedback to our development and management team. ... I'd recommend that you forward the recommendation to the Microsoft ... it will not consider Windows XP as a compatibility mode. ... Do you remember in Service pack 1, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Closecombat and Windows XP... HELP! =)
    ... down SHIFT as you insert the game CD, ... To run an installed program using Windows XP's Compatibility Mode, ... Microsoft Windows MVP ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.games)
  • RE: OFFICE 07 CONFUSING COMPATILITY? Heres Why...
    ... several dozen trainers for the next two years to help you deploy the UPGRADE ... we can better estimate what the Compatibility ... file format your company adopts as the "standard", and which new features you ... I'd be willing to bet good money that even Microsoft wouldn't spend the kind ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)