Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 515984
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Uh, c# is the language, the .net framework is just an set of libraries. They are related, but not the same thing. The language can be implemented separately from the .net runtime.
Oh, and you can stop waiting.
I responded to the parent who suggested only using standardized programming languages, and gave a list of those he felt were not. c# was on that list, and I explained that it was and ISO and EMCA standard. C# IS A STANDARD, even if the standard has not been updated, and even if you feel the need to nitpick.
Edited 2012-04-27 18:04 UTC
C# IS A STANDARD, even if the standard has not been updated, and even if you feel the need to nitpick.
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





Member since:
2005-07-08
Good try though.
Really?
Please provide me the EMCA standard number for .NET 3.0 and .NET 4.0 CLR, along with C# 3.0 and C# 4.0.
I can wait, because you see, those standards are not updated since .NET 2.0.