Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:16 UTC, submitted by Wyatt Lyon Preul
.NET (dotGNU too) Scott Guthrie has announced that Visual Studio 2008 and .NET 3.5 are now available for download and provides a tour of some of the new features. "Visual Studio 2008 and .NET 3.5 contain a ton of new functionality and improvements. Below are links to blog posts I've done myself as well as links to videos you can watch to learn more about it."
Thread beginning with comment 285434
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Looks fantastic
by duckie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Looks fantastic"
duckie
Member since:
2006-04-10

"Worrying about five different versions of .Net to target, with more on the way presumably, is not solving anyone's problems."

FUD. Target whatever version you want. Just get the client to install the version you use. You know, you can have all the .net versions installed without any problems.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Looks fantastic
by segedunum on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:26 in reply to "RE[6]: Looks fantastic"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

FUD. Target whatever version you want. Just get the client to install the version you use. You know, you can have all the .net versions installed without any problems.

If only it were that easy. Not only do you need to test with that version, or test with all versions, .Net and your application do not stand by themselves. There is a veritable panoply of dependencies to take care of in addition to .Net, in addition to worrying about what framework is installed, installing a new framework if the one you want isn't there or simply assuming things are compatible. WinForms or Avalon? God knows. Why should one even need to pick? Hell, installation on Linux is beginning to look attractive!

This isn't FUD. This is happening today, and has been for some time. As Joel Spolsky once said about this, it's not 1990 any more.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Looks fantastic
by zlynx on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:35 in reply to "RE[7]: Looks fantastic"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Hell, installation on Linux is beginning to look attractive!

Yep, at least on Linux the package managers will download all your dependencies for you.
It's too bad Vista is still stuck in the last century for package management. I really thought MS would fix that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Looks fantastic
by duckie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:28 in reply to "RE[7]: Looks fantastic"
duckie Member since:
2006-04-10

"If only it were that easy. Not only do you need to test with that version, or test with all versions, .Net and your application do not stand by themselves."

I dont get your point? You write a lot of nonsense, impossible to respond to.

What dependencies? The dependecies (external libraries etc) i in my application? If a version of library not exists on the system, i simply put it in the gac. The gac manages all the different versions of that library, and i just load the one i need.

You are right its not 1990 anymore, and its not 1995 anymore either. Luckily dll-hell is non-exisiting in .net, if you do things the "Correct way"(tm).

And yes it is fud, i strongly belive you yourself has had a big dose of it. You arguments point suggest it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Looks fantastic
by Bit_Rapist on Tue 20th Nov 2007 20:59 in reply to "RE[7]: Looks fantastic"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

f only it were that easy. Not only do you need to test with that version, or test with all versions, .Net and your application do not stand by themselves. There is a veritable panoply of dependencies to take care of in addition to .Net, in addition to worrying about what framework is installed

Dude you pick a framework to develop against and thats the one you want the end user to have, you don't need to test with multiple versions.

External dependancies in addition to the .net framework are on a 'per application' basis and your requirements and development decisions will influence this. If you use a ton of COM interop and depend on older ActiveX/COM servers then yes you might have some tough deployments, but again that is up to you as a developer on the best route to take.

This isn't FUD. This is happening today, and has been for some time. As Joel Spolsky once said about this, it's not 1990 any more.

What is happening today? I'm not sure I follow you.

My most recent .net application was a simple deployment. I verified during installation that the 2.0 version of the framework was installed and then I copied my entire application to a single folder and ran it. Not a single issue.

I think you might be making things far more complicated than they need to be for yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 2