.Net Framework 3.0 announced

[Nick Malik [Microsoft]]

I didn't want folks to miss this.

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx


--
--- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
representative of my employer.
I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
programmer helping programmers.
--

 

[Larry Lard]

I didn't want folks to miss this.

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx

Ah yes, the ".NET Framework 3.0" that is actually Framework 2.0 plus
WinFX, with no actual CLR changes at all. Don't you just love
marketing!

 

[Damien]

Ah yes, the ".NET Framework 3.0" that is actually Framework 2.0 plus
WinFX, with no actual CLR changes at all. Don't you just love
marketing!

Yes, especially given the fact that 1.0 -> 1.1 did introduce underlying
changes (nowt like the leap to 2.0 though), I'd have expected it to be
2.1. I guess they figure that they're vastly expanding the framework
libraries, so that counts (or some other such logic).

Does anyone have any figures on the number of classes available in the
various versions of the framework?

Damien

 

[William Stacey [MVP]]

Hi Nick. Will it be true that *no fixes or updates will be applied to core
2.0 at all? I would have bet yall would need/want to change some things for
the new release. BTW - I don't have an issue with the version number (some
seem to think the sky is falling).

--
William Stacey [MVP]

|I didn't want folks to miss this.
|
| http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/06/09/624300.aspx
|
|
| --
| --- Nick Malik [Microsoft]
| MCSD, CFPS, Certified Scrummaster
| http://blogs.msdn.com/nickmalik
|
| Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this forum are my own, and not
| representative of my employer.
| I do not answer questions on behalf of my employer. I'm just a
| programmer helping programmers.
| --
|
|

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

But, the additions of LINQ, WinFX, etc. is a big change. Of course, they
could have just called it .NET Framework 2.0+. Oh, wait, they stopped using
the + years ago.

--
Gregory A. Beamer

*************************************************
Think Outside the Box!
*************************************************

 

[Larry Lard]

But, the additions of LINQ, WinFX, etc. is a big change. Of course, they
could have just called it .NET Framework 2.0+. Oh, wait, they stopped using
the + years ago.

The introduction of LINQ would, I agree, be a big change. But this
doesn't include that! LINQ is part of 'Orcas', the next version of the
CLR and VS. This renaming of WinFX to .NET Framework 3.0 doesn't
actually include any changes to what we used to call 'the .NET
Framework'. To quote the blog post (my emphases):

"
The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of

the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET,
WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR,
[ie *everything we already have*]

as well as

new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS:
[what used to be called Avalon, Indigo, etc]
"

Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET,
WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number
to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope.
Which is pure marketing.

 

[Daniel Billingsley]

Well, yes I agree it's marketing...branding... whatever you want to call it.
It is obviously a purposeful name change meant by Microsoft to convey
something. I really don't have a problem with that per se.

But it does seem to be to be an invitation for confusion and weirdness
though - will an application developed with 2.0 of the framework still run
with 3.0 of the framework as long as you don't use any WinFX namespaces? Or
is MS going to actually bump the version on the existing framework libraries
even though there won't really be any changes there?

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET,

WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number
to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope.
Which is pure marketing.

I wouldn't say that. The core of the Framework is the CLR and CLI, which are
the basis (at least partially) of WCF, WCS, and WF. Each of these
technologies presents a full .Net API. The concept of "Framework" is similar
philosophically to the concept of "Plaform," meaning an infrastructure that
can be built upon.

I actually think the name is appropriate, and less confusing than having a
whole new buzz term to memorize. And I would venture to guess that it also
indicates a further migration of the Windows platform to the .Net platform,
a process which it seems Microsoft is taking incrementally.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Professional Chicken Salad Alchemist

A lifetime is made up of
Lots of short moments.

But, the additions of LINQ, WinFX, etc. is a big change. Of course, they
could have just called it .NET Framework 2.0+. Oh, wait, they stopped
using
the + years ago.

The introduction of LINQ would, I agree, be a big change. But this
doesn't include that! LINQ is part of 'Orcas', the next version of the
CLR and VS. This renaming of WinFX to .NET Framework 3.0 doesn't
actually include any changes to what we used to call 'the .NET
Framework'. To quote the blog post (my emphases):

"
The .NET Framework 3.0 is still comprised of

the existing .NET Framework 2.0 components, including ASP.NET,
WinForms, ADO.NET, additional base class libraries and the CLR,
[ie *everything we already have*]

as well as

new developer-focused innovative technologies in WPF, WCF, WF and WCS:
[what used to be called Avalon, Indigo, etc]
"

Basically, 'the Framework' used to mean the CLR, ADO.NET, ASP.NET,
WinForms. Now it means a whole lot more, with an upped version number
to represent not any actual changes in function, just changes in scope.
Which is pure marketing.