Re: Changes in 2005.

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


I'm not sure I agree with your point on the change in class names, naming
conventions for events etc,. from the stand point that improvements
(although we sometimes why they're called that) will always be made to the
current vocabulary because, as all languages do, C# is evolving. Sometimes
adaptations, from one version to the next, show up that something previously
used is no longer appropriate because the context has changed.

If this principle wasn't so and with each release everything remained
stringently the same, then, firstly, the evolution process would cramp up in
the boundries of existing terminology, and secondly, each time something was
extended it wouldn't be an increase in the version number on an existing
syntax, but a requirement to define a new language and specification from
scratch. This just isn't practical. C# would need to become C#minor and then
C#minor7th rather than C# on .Net 1.0/1.1, C# 2 on .Net 2.0 etc.

But this point draws us back to the fact that an IDE for C# v2 should
support C# v1. Why? Well because we don't want to port what works into a new
version of the framework simply because we prefer the new development
environment.


"Mark Broadbent" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uFYLVcugFHA.3540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> My 2 cents. Firstly thanks for all your input into this thread -it's been
> interesting.
>
> On the subject of VB6 to .net, this was the first step that MS took imo
> (with regards to IDE / Compiler) to forcefully lead us to change. Whilst I
> love .net (in particular C#) I do feel this is a worrying trend with MS.
> There is no reason at all why the nextgen IDE should not be able to
> support a previous codebase without changes to it (runtime or not). Whilst
> the instructional feedback in VS2005 is very good as far as showing what
> changes you should make, this should not be necessary.
>
> If I wanted to use the new IDE functionality, but target for 1.1 then I
> should be able to. If there are certain IDE functions that would not (or
> should not) be compatible with this framework then they could be disabled
> in the IDE -so the IDE operates independantly of the framework. Likewise,
> if a different and newer runtime is selected in the IDE, then the IDE (or
> compiler) could simply display those problematic parts of code (and not
> compile). I think I have banged on about these points in the past.
> Likewise this approach could be taken with respect to writing native code
> in VB using the new IDE.
>
> I think my original point about the addition of new classes to replace old
> classes concerned me more on the basis of their necessity (if it aint
> broke..). The only justification I can think of is if they provided much
> needed functionality or a big improvement in performance gain.
> It is still early days for me to come to any conclusion as whether this
> might be so, however I would not be very happy having to relearn a
> different DataAdpter or another set of classes offerring the same type of
> function every time a new IDE/ framework is released.
>
> br,
>
> Mark.
>
>
> "Mark Broadbent" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OB0U5rigFHA.3912@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive or
>> informative replies.
>>
>> Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to Framework
>> classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to replace old
>> ones (that only appear to offer a different location in the
>> framework) -ConfigurationManager seems to be one.
>> And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had
>> Closing ..now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is in
>> the designer (new one) and one isn't.
>> What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names fer
>> gawd sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly than it
>> should be.
>>
>> Br,
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Changes in 2005.
    ... (with regards to IDE / Compiler) ... There is no reason at all why the nextgen IDE should not be able to support ... If I wanted to use the new IDE functionality, but target for 1.1 then I ... the IDE -so the IDE operates independantly of the framework. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • RE: Server controls and VS version
    ... As for the using webcontrol developed on a certain framework version (IDE) ... Server controls and VS version ...
    (microsoft.public.vsnet.general)
  • Re: If you had to move from VB6...
    ... If I had to move from VB6, which language would I choose. ... Which language would most resemble it in IDE, ease of coding and, yes, ... It is multiplatform (Windows and Linux so far, also some mobile and embedded Oses), and does not treat the windows version as a poor cousin. ... The framework assists nice, modern GUIs, has sophisticated controls, applications and html are scriptable with Javascript. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: TreeNode in Bold
    ... erkenne ich dem Framework aber RAD ab. ... Das man mit .NET momentan kein RAD machen kann liegt aber mehr an der ... Es ist also Hoffnung da das die IDE so langsam an das rankommt was bei ... Classic um Faktoren produktiver als in C#. ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.entwickler.dotnet.csharp)
  • Re: Is it possible to convert VB3 to .NET ?
    ... framework, ... check out some of Microsoft's sample code. ... written compares with their sample code, people that rely on the framework ... Over the years I have occasionally wondered what the VB IDE was doing behind ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)