Conversion from 2008->2003?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alain Dekker
  • Start date Start date
Rory Becker said:
Hello Scott M.,



AFAIK .Net 4.0 provides a new CLR and therefore starts a new dependancy
tree.

Which is to say .Net 4.0 does not require 2.0 or 3.0 or 3.5
Click to expand...

I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but for VS 2010 to be able to
build applications against 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, or 4, you'd need to have each one
of those Frameworks installed separately. How is the 4.0 CLR going to act
like the 2.0 CLR if you choose to target a 2.0 Framework app. in VS 2010?
This seems to go against the whole idea of side-by-side execution and means
that now the Framework is backwards-compatible, which I dont think it is.

-Scott
 
I was thinking the same think, but Alain said it was being suggested to him
via Windows Update and Windows Update doesn't usually push developer tools
down.

-Scott
 
Rory Becker said:
However I would say that VS2008 (for my purposes at least) is better than
either in almost every way.
Click to expand...

I agree. Because of the many add-ins and patches VS 2005 had, many people
think of VS 2008 as VS 2005 with all the patches and add-ins already there.

There is no doubt that the improvements added to VS 2005 (when they worked)
and VS 2008 make them leaps and bounds better than 2003.

-Scott
 
Hello Scott M.,
I may be wrong (wouldn't be the first time), but for VS 2010 to be
able to build applications against 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, or 4, you'd need to
have each one of those Frameworks installed separately. How is the
4.0 CLR going to act like the 2.0 CLR if you choose to target a 2.0
Framework app. in VS 2010? This seems to go against the whole idea of
side-by-side execution and means that now the Framework is
backwards-compatible, which I dont think it is.
Click to expand...

It is my belief ( I have not checked this)

That there are 3 distinct stacks

1.x Stack = 1.0 CLR + 1.0 and 1.1 libraries (not entirely sure about this)

2.0 Stack = 2.0 CLR + 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 Libs - 2.0 libs contain copies of
relavent previous libs.

4.0 Stack = 4.0 CLR + 4.0 Libraries - 4.0 libs contain copies of relavent
previous libs.

Each stack is totally independant of other stacks and can be installed or
not with no detriment to the others.

However you are correct that if the development tools target a stack or set
of libraries, then those Stacks /Libs would need to be present on the dev
machine.

Therefore I find it reasonable that on a Dev10 machine, you would find the
2.0 stack and the 4.0 stack both installed.

However if you wrote a program targetting 4.0, then I believe the target
machine would only need 4.0 installed and you would not need a 2.0 stack
on that machine.

I would welcome any comment on these theories as that is all they are.
 
Rory Becker said:
Hello Scott M.,


It is my belief ( I have not checked this)
That there are 3 distinct stacks
1.x Stack = 1.0 CLR + 1.0 and 1.1 libraries (not entirely sure about this)

2.0 Stack = 2.0 CLR + 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 Libs - 2.0 libs contain copies of
relavent previous libs.

4.0 Stack = 4.0 CLR + 4.0 Libraries - 4.0 libs contain copies of relavent
previous libs.

Each stack is totally independant of other stacks and can be installed or
not with no detriment to the others.

However you are correct that if the development tools target a stack or
set of libraries, then those Stacks /Libs would need to be present on the
dev machine.

Therefore I find it reasonable that on a Dev10 machine, you would find the
2.0 stack and the 4.0 stack both installed.
However if you wrote a program targetting 4.0, then I believe the target
machine would only need 4.0 installed and you would not need a 2.0 stack
on that machine.

I would welcome any comment on these theories as that is all they are.
Click to expand...

Hi Rory,

Just a couple of notes on this:

AFAIK, there is a 1.0 CLR that is separate and distinct from the 1.1 CLR,
thus you need the 1.0 CLR to work with VS 2002 and the 1.1 CLR to work with
VS 2003. In other words, the 1.0 CLR doesn't work with 1.1 libraries.

The rest of your comments above are correct, but since VS 2010 will have
*built-in* support for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 Framework targetting, it
stands to reason that installing VS 2010 would therefore cause all of those
Frameworks to be installed, which was my point. Now, you'd need about 800MB
for all of those.

I actually just installed VS 2010 Beta 2 but since I already had all the
previous Framework versions, I can't know for sure if they would have been
installed had I not already had them. I'm guessing they would have been.

-Scott
 
Hello Scott M.,
Just a couple of notes on this:

AFAIK, there is a 1.0 CLR that is separate and distinct from the 1.1
CLR, thus you need the 1.0 CLR to work with VS 2002 and the 1.1 CLR to
work with VS 2003. In other words, the 1.0 CLR doesn't work with 1.1
libraries.

The rest of your comments above are correct, but since VS 2010 will
have *built-in* support for 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 Framework
targetting, it stands to reason that installing VS 2010 would
therefore cause all of those Frameworks to be installed, which was my
point. Now, you'd need about 800MB for all of those.

I actually just installed VS 2010 Beta 2 but since I already had all
the previous Framework versions, I can't know for sure if they would
have been installed had I not already had them. I'm guessing they
would have been.
Click to expand...

Yeah that all sounds pretty reasonable to me :)

I was definitley unsure about the 1.x theories.

Thanks for clarrifiying.
 
Back
Top