Is .NET 4.0 a replacement of 2.0?

[CSharpner]

When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be
there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.

What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or
does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?

TIA

 

[Peter Duniho]

When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be
there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.

What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or
does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?

The former.

 

[CSharpner]

The former.

Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[PvdG42]

Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?

Sorry for the confusion.

4.0 is a complete new framework.

 

[CSharpner]

4.0 is a complete new framework.

Thanks!

 

[Peter Duniho]

Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?

I only saw two sentences that were actual questions, which were the ones
to which I responded and referred. Sorry it wasn't more clear.

 

[CSharpner]

I only saw two sentences that were actual questions, which were the ones
to which I responded and referred.  Sorry it wasn't more clear.

Very true. Only two were questions. Unfortunately, a lot of people
(not you, of course) aren't as direct and logical as you are. I
couldn't tell which kind of replyer you were.