Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Permalink for comment 516016
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
I stand corrected, C# v1.0 and v2.0 are standardized, nothing beyond that.
Legally, you are only allowed to implement up to C# v2.0,
there is no legal protection beyond that version, other than Microsoft stating in some web site that they will play nice with the open source community.
Plus .NET and C# are intertwined, for certain language features, you do require a specific CLR version. It is not as you could target CLR v1.0 with C# v4.0, for example.
So what is the point to use a language, which legally is frozen in time?
Edited 2012-04-27 21:34 UTC