about .NET versions

[Tony Johansson]

Hello!

I just wonder what do I miss if I only have VS2005 without having
..NET 1.1 installed ?
According to Jon Skeet he said that it makes sense to have both 1.1 and 2.0
installed.
When installing VS2005 you automatically get .NET 2.0 but not .NET 1.1.

With VS2005 you get .NET 2.0.
With VS2008 you get .NET 3.5.

Remember that 2.0 and 3.5 frameworks include all previous versions too.

Not really - .NET 2.0 doesn't include .NET 1.1, which has a different
CLR. The framework libraries of .NET 2.0 include all the framework
ibraries of 1.1, but that's not quite the same thing.

In particular, it makes sense to have both 1.1 and 2.0 installed, but
when you install .NET 3.5 it supercedes .NET 2.0 and .NET

//Tony

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I just wonder what do I miss if I only have VS2005 without having
.NET 1.1 installed ?

It means that anything built for .NET 1.1 will run under .NET 2.0.
Usually that's fine, but there are a *few* compatibility issues.

According to Jon Skeet he said that it makes sense to have both 1.1 and 2.0
installed.

Sometimes, yes. Only occasionally though.

It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
..NET 1.1.

 

[Pavel Minaev]

Sometimes, yes. Only occasionally though.

It also means you can't build anything for anyone *else* to run under
.NET 1.1.

I may be wrong, but couldn't one refrain from using APIs introduced in
2.0, and correct the .exe.config so that 1.x is the required runtime,
even with VS2005?

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I may be wrong, but couldn't one refrain from using APIs introduced in
2.0, and correct the .exe.config so that 1.x is the required runtime,
even with VS2005?

I don't think so - I'm pretty sure that the IL that it generates says
that it expects the 2.0 CLR. A whole load of extra IL was included in
2.0 for generics etc, and even if you don't use it I expect that it
includes the IL version number.