J
jon.ronnenberg
Is it possible to use C# 2.0 in VS.NET 2003 and how can I tell what
version of C# I'm using?
version of C# I'm using?
M
Michael Nemtsev
Hello (e-mail address removed),
Nope, each VS use correspond version of .net. vs 2003 uses .net 1.1
---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsch
Nope, each VS use correspond version of .net. vs 2003 uses .net 1.1
---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev :: blog: http://spaces.msn.com/laflour
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not
cease to be insipid." (c) Friedrich Nietzsch
B
Bruce Wood
No. The VS2003 IDE is designed for C# 1.1 and understands only that.
On the other hand, if you are using VS2005, you can restrict yourself
to only 1.1 functionality, but even then you can't target the 1.1
runtime.
Each version of the IDE builds exclusively for the corresponding
runtime version.
On the other hand, if you are using VS2005, you can restrict yourself
to only 1.1 functionality, but even then you can't target the 1.1
runtime.
Each version of the IDE builds exclusively for the corresponding
runtime version.
I
Ian Semmel
So, as time goes by, everyone's machine is going to be filled with multiple .NET
frameworks unless all applications are updated ?
frameworks unless all applications are updated ?
G
Guest
You could always go back to dll hell.
B
Bruce Wood
As I understand it the transition from 1.1 to 2.0 is smooth. I haven't
heard of anyone saying that they had to make a bunch of tweaks to their
code to make the changeover.
Client machines should ("should") be automatically updated by Microsoft
Automatic Update, so they should all have both frameworks loaded on
them.
Has anyone out there found that they _have to_ run side-by-side? I'd be
interested to find out why. [BTW, we haven't gone to 2.0 yet... that's
why I'm interested.
]
heard of anyone saying that they had to make a bunch of tweaks to their
code to make the changeover.
Client machines should ("should") be automatically updated by Microsoft
Automatic Update, so they should all have both frameworks loaded on
them.
Has anyone out there found that they _have to_ run side-by-side? I'd be
interested to find out why. [BTW, we haven't gone to 2.0 yet... that's
why I'm interested.
]
J
Jon Davis
The CLR for .NET 2.0 will execute v1.0 and v1.1 assemblies (DLLs and EXEs)
cleanly 99.9% of the time. Typically no machine having v2.0 of the framework
necessarily needs v1.1 of the framework unless an application explicitly
requires it for some strange reason.
Jon
cleanly 99.9% of the time. Typically no machine having v2.0 of the framework
necessarily needs v1.1 of the framework unless an application explicitly
requires it for some strange reason.
Jon
J
Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
Bruce Wood said:
I've seen problems. There are various small incompatibilities, not all
of which are documented.
Has anyone out there found that they _have to_ run side-by-side? I'd be
interested to find out why. [BTW, we haven't gone to 2.0 yet... that's
why I'm interested.
Yes. I have seen applications which won't work on 2.0, which means that
if someone has already installed 2.0 in order to use applications which
require it, they still need to run others with 1.1. In ASP.NET, this
can mean setting individual virtual directories to use specific
versions.