Opinions on .NET Framework?

[Scott M.]

I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform that
is here to stay. Since MS no longer supports VS 6.0, you'd need VS .NET to
do native development anyway.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I know. My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development platform that
is here to stay. Since MS no longer supports VS 6.0, you'd need VS .NET to
do native development anyway.

Ah. Both of those points are fair enough - but very different to the
idea that .NET itself is the only development platform from MS.

 

[Peter Duniho]

Ah. Both of those points are fair enough - but very different to the
idea that .NET itself is the only development platform from MS.

And not accurate either, since you don't need to use any Microsoft
development tools in order to write code for the native Windows API.

VS.NET is not required, nor is VS 2005. All you need is any compiler with
the appropriate Windows include files (available in the Platform SDK) and a
linker that can make the appropriate references to the Windows DLLs.

IMHO, it's a mistake to confuse the "platform" (that is, the API) with the
"development environment" (that is, the coding tools, including the
compiler, the linker, and a visual environment such as VS, if one so
chooses). And yet, for most of this thread it seems that people are doing
just that, confusing the two.

Pete

 

[Scott M.]

Well, I used the term "development platform" and my meaning was the IDE.
Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported
development "environments" by MS, I would say they are here to stay.

 

[Peter Duniho]

Well, I used the term "development platform"

Yes, you did. But you also said that .NET is "the only development platform
made by Microsoft for building Windows based applications", which is not
true.

and my meaning was the IDE.

And that's an incorrect meaning of the usual use of the phrase "development
platform", nor is the IDE equivalent to .NET. In theory, the VS IDE is not
required for .NET development, and in practice it is certainly not required
for native Windows programming, contrary to your claim that it is.

However you look at it, neither .NET nor the Visual Studio IDE is the only
way to create Windows-based applications.

Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported
development "environments" by MS, I would say they are here to stay.

If by "supported", you mean "published", then that's true. I certainly
agree that Microsoft is likely to continue publishing developer tools such
as Visual Studio for a long time to come.

But that has nothing to do with the viability of .NET as a long-term API for
programming Windows, nor is it true that .NET is the only way to build
Windows applications.

Pete

 

[Kevin Spencer]

In addition, I might mention that the .Net platform comes with all the
command-line tools needed to write .Net applications without the Visual
Studio IDE. Visual Studio merely shells out to these to enhance
productivity. The free .Net Framework SDK contains all the documentation for
these tools. See http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms299153.aspx

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

What You Seek Is What You Get

 

[Scott M.]

Peter, you've provided much info. here, but you need to back up a bit. You
mention that VS.NET is not required to build .NET apps. and I am aware of
that, but then you wouldn't be using a development environment anymore
(unless you count the command line as a development enviornment - which I
don't).

My point (which you have twisted into words that I did not say) was simply
that if you wanted to buy a development environment from MS, you'd buy VS
..NET (to do any kind of Windows development), because that's where all their
eggs are right now.

When I said MS doesn't support VS 6.0, I meant just that (not that it's the
only "published" environment). I mean MS has stopped providing (public)
support for the VS 6.0 product and applications and language versions
therein. That (again) leaves us with just VS .NET as the sole development
environment for Windows applications.

I did not say that it is REQUIRED for Windows development, I simply said it
is the only development environment/platform/ide (pick the term you like)
made by MS for building Windows applications.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

Microsoft has also stopped providing support for Windows 98. There is no
difference. Support for older versions of software can only go back so far.
So, I don't see what the point is supposed to be here.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Short Order Coder
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

What You Seek Is What You Get

 

[Scott M.]

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ok, let's try this...

Q: I'd like to do some Windows development. What development IDE's are
available from MS to accomplish this task?

A: One of the VS .NET flavors.

Summary:

VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time. So, I would
say that .NET (as a development platform and an API) will be with us for a
while.

 

[Peter Duniho]

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Ok, let's try this...

Q: I'd like to do some Windows development. What development IDE's are
available from MS to accomplish this task?

Who asked that question? Why is an answer to that question relevant in this
thread?

A: One of the VS .NET flavors.

Summary:

VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time. So, I would
say that .NET (as a development platform and an API) will be with us for a
while.

As far as I know, there is no Visual Studio .NET anymore. I have both the
Express and retail version of Visual Studio, and both of them simply say
"2005". They don't appear to be labeled as ".NET" any longer.

In any case, the continued production of some version of Visual Studio in no
way at all implies the continued support of any version of .NET. The two
are completely independent of each other. Microsoft could easily drop
support for the .NET Framework without affecting their Visual Studio
business. Currently, it would be harder for them to drop Visual Studio
without affecting the .NET Framework, since there are no third-party tools
for writing .NET code, but the fact remains that there is at least the
theoretical possibility of that.

So, it seems to me that not only have you misinterpreted the original
question (it wasn't asking about development tools), your answer continues
to confuse the API and the development tools used to write software for the
API. At every step, you've tried to modify the original question to better
suit the answers you're giving, but in doing so the answers still aren't
correct.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to attack you or somehow undermine your
credibility. But I do think it's *very* important to understand the
difference between a given API (of which there are many for writing Windows
software) and a development tool (of which there are many for writing
Windows software). Inasmuch as your replies appear to confuse the two, I
see a need to at least attempt to correct that confusion.

Pete

 

[Scott M.]

Pete,

This is my last word on this (cause I'm growing old over here)....

See responses inline...

Who asked that question? Why is an answer to that question relevant in
this thread?

I did. And, it's relevant because it explains my original reply in this
thread.

As far as I know, there is no Visual Studio .NET anymore. I have both the
Express and retail version of Visual Studio, and both of them simply say
"2005". They don't appear to be labeled as ".NET" any longer.

True, but VS .NET 2002 and VS .NET 2003 are still supported products from MS
and VS 2005 (while not having the .NET brand name) still works with the .NET
Framework. The decision to drop .NET from the name is not related to the
adoption (or lack thereof) of the .NET technology by MS, it has to do with
the ubiquitous nature that .NET has become and marketing.

In any case, the continued production of some version of Visual Studio in
no way at all implies the continued support of any version of .NET. The
two are completely independent of each other. Microsoft could easily drop
support for the .NET Framework without affecting their Visual Studio
business. Currently, it would be harder for them to drop Visual Studio
without affecting the .NET Framework, since there are no third-party tools
for writing .NET code, but the fact remains that there is at least the
theoretical possibility of that.

Ok, but what does that have to do with the OP or anything that I have said.
I never once said .NET reigns supreme and will continue to do so ad
infinitem. Any implications that this is what I said, were made by you.

So, it seems to me that not only have you misinterpreted the original
question (it wasn't asking about development tools), your answer continues
to confuse the API and the development tools used to write software for
the API. At every step, you've tried to modify the original question to
better suit the answers you're giving, but in doing so the answers still
aren't correct.

No, not at all. You've just continuously been pounding your terminology
preferences over mine. My point is simple and clear (despite your attempts
to make it more compicated). Right now (and for the foreseeable future) MS
is providing a development environment that relies on the .NET Framework for
(all but native) code written with it. The .NET Framework is certainly not
a *small* part of the Visual Studio equation. And, this is the ONLY
development environment being supplied by MS at this time.

I brought the IDE into the conversation as a way to express the current
importance of the .NET Framework. Despite your feelings that talking about
the development environment is somehow not warrented in the replies to this
thread (the title of the post by the way was: "Opinions on the .NET
Framework" - - did you notice the Opinions part?), I felt it appropriate to
talk about the development environment that 99.999% of Windows developers
are currently using to develop .NET applications. I never said .NET
applications couldn't be built without it (as you have implied that I did
say). I said that it is the only "development platform" being provided by
MS for .NET development at this time. You take issue with my wording here
(development platform). Fine, how about "developmemt IDE" instead? This is
what I meant (and quite frankly, clearly understandable by most readers).

Don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to attack you or somehow undermine
your credibility. But I do think it's *very* important to understand the
difference between a given API (of which there are many for writing
Windows software) and a development tool (of which there are many for
writing Windows software). Inasmuch as your replies appear to confuse the
two, I see a need to at least attempt to correct that confusion.

Nor am I, but I think the simple point (which I won't repeat because I've
stated it simply several times by now) which I've been trying to make has
been obscured by hair splitting on terminology.


By the way, going back to the OP (which I haven't strayed from at all,
despite your statements to the contrary), let's add the fact that the 3.0
Framework will be coming out and that the most (if not all) of MS's
enterprise server line have (or will have) native CLR support add to my
orginal assertion that .NET will be here for a while.

 

[Peter Duniho]

I did. And, it's relevant because it explains my original reply in this
thread.

No, it doesn't. As that question is entirely irrelevant to the original
post starting this thread, you asking the question later fails to explain
your original reply in this thread.

True, but VS .NET 2002 and VS .NET 2003 are still supported products from
MS and VS 2005 (while not having the .NET brand name) still works with the
.NET Framework.

You wrote "VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time".
Yet, you agree that there also exists "VS 2005", which is also an "MS
development environment". Is "VS .NET" the only one or isn't it?

Again, you are confusing the issues by making absolute statements with
incorrect words.

[...]
Ok, but what does that have to do with the OP or anything that I have
said. I never once said .NET reigns supreme and will continue to do so ad
infinitem. Any implications that this is what I said, were made by you.

So, when you wrote "My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development
platform that is here to stay", what did that mean exactly?

I certainly never used words like "reigns supreme" nor "ad infinitem [sic]",
but when I used similar words to describe your statements on the subject,
they were based on your comment of "here to stay".

No, not at all. You've just continuously been pounding your terminology
preferences over mine.

I think the development community as a whole is pretty well in agreement on
the definitions of an "API" or "platform" versus a "development
environment". There's a reason that the words "development environment"
help compose the abbreviation IDE. Likewise, there's a reason the Platform
SDK uses the word "platform" in its name, even though it can be used with
tools other than Visual Studio.

In other words, these aren't MY terminology preferences alone. They are
shared by the greater community that depends on such words.

My point is simple and clear (despite your attempts to make it more
compicated). Right now (and for the foreseeable future) MS is providing a
development environment that relies on the .NET Framework for (all but
native) code written with it.

The original poster was NOT asking about "a development environment", nor is
the .NET Framework a development environment (nor, for that matter, is
Visual Studio limited to coding native Windows API code and .NET Framework
code).

The .NET Framework is certainly not a *small* part of the Visual Studio
equation. And, this is the ONLY development environment being supplied by
MS at this time.

Visual Studio, not .NET Framework, is the "only" development environment
being supplied by MS at this time. (Ignoring for a moment development
environments Microsoft provides for other platforms, as well as the fact
that Visual Studio is not in fact the only development environment Microsoft
provides for the Windows platform).

I brought the IDE into the conversation as a way to express the current
importance of the .NET Framework. Despite your feelings that talking
about the development environment is somehow not warrented in the replies
to this thread

It's not the talking about the development environment that bothers me.
It's the treatment of the *platform* as a development environment that does.

(the title of the post by the way was: "Opinions on the .NET
Framework" - - did you notice the Opinions part?),

Yes. Did YOU notice the ".NET Framework" part?

I felt it appropriate to talk about the development environment that
99.999% of Windows developers are currently using to develop .NET
applications. I never said .NET applications couldn't be built without it
(as you have implied that I did say). I said that it is the only
"development platform" being provided by MS for .NET development at this
time. You take issue with my wording here (development platform). Fine,
how about "developmemt IDE" instead? This is what I meant (and quite
frankly, clearly understandable by most readers).

If that's what you meant, it's what you should have written. The subsequent
reply to your post clearly was a result of interpreting "development
platform" as practically every other professional programmer does, and your
subsequent reply failed to clarify what it was exactly you were talking
about. This was exacerbated by your use of the pronoun "it" in your reply,
implying that you were talking about the .NET Framework and not the Visual
Studio IDE.

Furthermore, given that by your own admission you clearly did NOT write what
you should have written, given your apparent intent, I find it bizarre that
you cannot simply just admit that your original reply did not accurately
convey your intent and leave it at that.

Nor am I, but I think the simple point (which I won't repeat because I've
stated it simply several times by now) which I've been trying to make has
been obscured by hair splitting on terminology.

As I wrote, "I do think it's *very* important to understand the difference
between a given API...and a development tool". This isn't just hair
splitting. These are two different terms, with very specific meanings, and
the distinction is important.

By the way, going back to the OP (which I haven't strayed from at all,
despite your statements to the contrary), let's add the fact that the 3.0
Framework will be coming out and that the most (if not all) of MS's
enterprise server line have (or will have) native CLR support add to my
orginal assertion that .NET will be here for a while.

But it is NOT the only way to write Windows software.

I don't disagree that .NET is going to be around for some time to come. I
do still believe it's important to get one's facts straight, whether that
means knowing what platforms exist for writing Windows software or knowing
what development environments exist for writing .NET code.

Pete

 

[Scott M.]

No, it doesn't. As that question is entirely irrelevant to the original
post starting this thread, you asking the question later fails to explain
your original reply in this thread.

If you can't make the leap from talking about the.NET Framework to talking
about VS .NET, then there's not much else I can say about it. This is the
crux of my point, which has been lost on you. Just because you say talking
about VS .NET is irrelevant to the OP does not make it so (it does for you,
perhaps), but your proclamation isn't gospel on this.

You wrote "VS .NET is the only MS development environment at this time".
Yet, you agree that there also exists "VS 2005", which is also an "MS
development environment". Is "VS .NET" the only one or isn't it?

When I say VS .NET, I am referring to VS .NET 2002, 2003 & 2005, which all
require the .NET Framework (there's that connection back to the OP again!).
Marketing terminology aside, we (us professional programmers you spoke of)
all know that VS 2005 uses the .NET Framework and you can't possibly tell me
you haven't heard of anyone referring to 2005 as VS .NET.

VS 6.0 does not use the .NET Framework, is not supported by MS anymore, and
is no longer MS's preferred tool for Windows development. So, YES, the only
IDE for Windows development provided by MS right now is VS .NET (in any of
its flavors).

This seems to be the only point of contention here. I have already
acknowledged that the term I used "development platform" and the term you
used "development tool/IDE/environment" is what I used interchangeably. Why
can't you just get over that and get back to the point instead of
"preaching"?

Again, you are confusing the issues by making absolute statements with
incorrect words.

[...]
Ok, but what does that have to do with the OP or anything that I have
said. I never once said .NET reigns supreme and will continue to do so ad
infinitem. Any implications that this is what I said, were made by you.

So, when you wrote "My point was simply that, yes, .NET is a development
platform that is here to stay", what did that mean exactly?

Exactly what it says, no more no less. MS has promoted .NET for 6 years
now. They have not even completed their "roll-out" of the .NET Framework as
standard software yet, although that is their plan. It is clear that the
plans being implemented right now (inclusion of .NET Framework in Vista, SQL
Server 2005, etc.) will guarantee a prominent role for .NET for, at lest the
next 5 to 7 years.

I certainly never used words like "reigns supreme" nor "ad infinitem
[sic]", but when I used similar words to describe your statements on the
subject, they were based on your comment of "here to stay".

I consider the next 5 to 7 years long enough to say "here to stay".

I think the development community as a whole is pretty well in agreement
on the definitions of an "API" or "platform" versus a "development
environment". There's a reason that the words "development environment"
help compose the abbreviation IDE. Likewise, there's a reason the
Platform SDK uses the word "platform" in its name, even though it can be
used with tools other than Visual Studio.

In other words, these aren't MY terminology preferences alone. They are
shared by the greater community that depends on such words.

[yawn] Well sorry Pete, by I've been in the development community myself for
quite some time and have heard folks say "development platform" when they
have been referring to the IDE. So what we have here boils down to a single
word. We've covered this already. I have "corrected" my terminology, like
4 posts ago, yet you continue to harp on it, rather than the OP.

The original poster was NOT asking about "a development environment", nor
is the .NET Framework a development environment (nor, for that matter, is
Visual Studio limited to coding native Windows API code and .NET Framework
code).

[last time he tries to connect the dots for Pete]
I spoke about the IDE because it is the ONLY IDE MS provides for ANY Windows
development at this point in time and the fact is that the current VS IDE's
requie the .NET Framework. Do you disagree? That being the case, I make
the one-degree of separation connection between the .NET Framework and the
IDE.

// ***************************************************
If the only IDE you can get from MS requires the .NET Framework and that
is MS's plan for the foreseeable future, then it is most certainly logical
to look
at the IDE product lifecycle as a bell-weather for the .NET Framework. Now,
if you still belive that this has nothing to do with the OP, then goodbye
and
good luck to you. If you can make that connection, read on.....
// ***************************************************

I never said that the .NET Framework was a "development environment", I use
that term to describe the IDE so, I don't know why you feel the need to
explain that fact to me here.

Visual Studio, not .NET Framework, is the "only" development environment
being supplied by MS at this time. (Ignoring for a moment development
environments Microsoft provides for other platforms, as well as the fact
that Visual Studio is not in fact the only development environment
Microsoft provides for the Windows platform).

What other IDE's are there that MS is providing and supporting right now?

I brought the IDE into the conversation as a way to express the current

It's not the talking about the development environment that bothers me.
It's the treatment of the *platform* as a development environment that
does.

Yes, we got that several posts back. Can you move on and stay on point?

(the title of the post by the way was: "Opinions on the .NET

Yes. Did YOU notice the ".NET Framework" part?

Sure did - see multi-line comment above.

If that's what you meant, it's what you should have written. The
subsequent reply to your post clearly was a result of interpreting
"development platform" as practically every other professional programmer
does, and your subsequent reply failed to clarify what it was exactly you
were talking about. This was exacerbated by your use of the pronoun "it"
in your reply, implying that you were talking about the .NET Framework and
not the Visual Studio IDE.

Were you a lawyer on the Clinton defense team? (the meaning of "is" is...)

Furthermore, given that by your own admission you clearly did NOT write
what you should have written, given your apparent intent, I find it
bizarre that you cannot simply just admit that your original reply did not
accurately convey your intent and leave it at that.

Think about what you've just written here. Really, go back and read it.
You acknowledge that I admitted that I did not write what I should have and
then you go on to say that I can't simply admit my OP didn't accurately
convey my intent. Well, it seems to me that if I've admitted that I didn't
write what I should have (for the hair-splitters in the crowd), then I have
done what you've suggested, haven't I?

As I wrote, "I do think it's *very* important to understand the difference
between a given API...and a development tool". This isn't just hair
splitting. These are two different terms, with very specific meanings,
and the distinction is important.


But it is NOT the only way to write Windows software.

I am not saying all Windows software must be managed, I'm saying the only
IDE for doing Windows develoment requires the .NET Framework. I'll ask
again, what other IDE is MS providing right now beside VS?

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

Regardless of this convoluted discussion I found rather annoying the way
this initial answer:
"Since it is the only development platform made by Micorosft for building
Windows based applications, I'd say it's pretty valid"

Might led to believe that .NET is your only serious developement
possibility.

I found rather disappointing that instead of taking this opportunity to
improve your communication skills and correct your mistake you prefer word
bickering...

Anyway that doesn't matter too much, anyone following this thread would have
quickly understand by now that:
1. .NET is, indeed, a good option to do windows developement
2. there are other good option too.

Which is all the poster needed to know in fact.

One might add information on when to choose which, but that was not
asked....

 

[Peter Duniho]

[...] I am not saying all Windows software must be managed, I'm saying the
only IDE for doing Windows develoment requires the .NET Framework.

I see no requirement listed with the Visual Studio documentation that says
it requires the .NET Framework. Perhaps you could provide some basis for
your claim that it does.

I'll ask again, what other IDE is MS providing right now beside VS?

The answer to that question has nothing to do with the question the original
poster asked.

Pete

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Well, I used the term "development platform" and my meaning was the IDE.
Since VS.NET (in its 2002, 2003 or 2005 forms) is/are the only supported
development "environments" by MS, I would say they are here to stay.

And that would make sense if the original question had talked about
VS.NET (although I agree with Peter that "development platform" usually
isn't the same as IDE - two people could both be working on the Java
"development platform" but use different IDE). However, the original
question starting the thread, *and* the post you first replied to
didn't mention VS.NET at all - they both talked about the .NET
framework.

The .NET framework is *not* the only development platform (used in the
traditional sense) supported by Microsoft for building Windows
applications.

So, to be clear here:

1) Yes, Visual Studio (in its various flavours, not all of which
include the name ".NET") is the only IDE from Microsoft for creating
Windows applications - at least as far as I'm aware.
2) No, the .NET framework isn't the only option supported by Microsoft
for building Windows applications.

Do you agree with both of the above? Do you see how your original
comment looks far closer to denying point 2 than to agreeing with point
1?

Jon

 

[Scott M.]

I see no requirement listed with the Visual Studio documentation that says

it requires the .NET Framework. Perhaps you could provide some basis for
your claim that it does.

The first step (out of the 3 step installation) is the installation of the
..NET Framework. It is part of the VS .NET installation, not a pre-install
requirement. You can not proceed to step 2 of the installation (the
installation of the VS.NET program) without completing step one. There is
no optional selector for step 1.

I'll ask again, what other IDE is MS providing right now beside VS?

The answer to that question has nothing to do with the question the
original poster asked.

In YOUR opinion, but in mine it does. Your refusal to answer that question
simply tells me that you want to be stubborn and not even "allow" me the
opportunity to make my point.

 

[Scott M.]

And that would make sense if the original question had talked about
VS.NET (although I agree with Peter that "development platform" usually
isn't the same as IDE - two people could both be working on the Java
"development platform" but use different IDE). However, the original
question starting the thread, *and* the post you first replied to
didn't mention VS.NET at all - they both talked about the .NET
framework.

Why is it so difficult for someone to understand that there is a
relationship between the .NET Framework and VS .NET? I am certainly aware
that they are not the same thing and I am aware that the OP asked about the
..NET Framework.

I can only come to the conclusion that you and Paul are just being stubborn
about this because it does not take a rocket scientist to see the
relationship between the .NET Framework and VS.NET. If the only IDE
produced by MS relies on the .NET Framework being present, that makes a
direct and clear case for the importance and longevity of the .NET
Framework, period. If you don't get that, too bad. The OP asked for
opinions, and that is mine. I find it easy and clear to see why using the
IDE as an example of why the .Framework is on solid ground a simple
conceptual leap to make, you don't - - your problem, not mine.

The .NET framework is *not* the only development platform (used in the
traditional sense) supported by Microsoft for building Windows
applications.

Jon, read the thread if you're going to post this far down it. I know what
a stickler you are for detail. I have already conceded that I should have
said "development environment" in my OP. So given that, my OP would not be
as you've written it above, which makes the above paragraph mute.

So, to be clear here:

1) Yes, Visual Studio (in its various flavours, not all of which
include the name ".NET") is the only IDE from Microsoft for creating
Windows applications - at least as far as I'm aware.

Me too AND THAT IS MY SIMPLE POINT.

2) No, the .NET framework isn't the only option supported by Microsoft
for building Windows applications.

I never said it was, I simply used the wrong term "platform", rather than
"environment" in my OP.

Do you agree with both of the above? Do you see how your original
comment looks far closer to denying point 2 than to agreeing with point
1?

Yes. And I've said that repeatedly at this point, so I wonder why you feel
the need to throw this in this late in the game.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Why is it so difficult for someone to understand that there is a
relationship between the .NET Framework and VS .NET? I am certainly aware
that they are not the same thing and I am aware that the OP asked about the
.NET Framework.

I agree there is a relationship. I agree they're not the same thing.

Given that they are not the same thing and that you're aware what the
OP asked about, why did you reply with a statement about VS.NET in a
way which implied you were talking about .NET?

I can only come to the conclusion that you and Paul are just being stubborn
about this because it does not take a rocket scientist to see the
relationship between the .NET Framework and VS.NET.

No-one's disputing that there's a relationship. We're saying your
original post was misleading.

If the only IDE
produced by MS relies on the .NET Framework being present, that makes a
direct and clear case for the importance and longevity of the .NET
Framework, period. If you don't get that, too bad. The OP asked for
opinions, and that is mine. I find it easy and clear to see why using the
IDE as an example of why the .Framework is on solid ground a simple
conceptual leap to make, you don't - - your problem, not mine.

Could you give any examples of where anyone's said that .NET is *not*
"on solid ground"?

Jon, read the thread if you're going to post this far down it. I know what
a stickler you are for detail. I have already conceded that I should have
said "development environment" in my OP. So given that, my OP would not be
as you've written it above, which makes the above paragraph mute.

Would it also have referred to VS.NET, instead of just the "it" which
until then had meant .NET? That's what I'm principally disputing here.

Me too AND THAT IS MY SIMPLE POINT.

A point you completely failed to make clear in the first post - not
just because of the use of the word "platform" though.

I never said it was, I simply used the wrong term "platform", rather than
"environment" in my OP.

You also replied to a post about the .NET framework using "it" as
Visual Studio instead though. It makes your whole first comment odd,
not just the word "platform".

Yes. And I've said that repeatedly at this point, so I wonder why you feel
the need to throw this in this late in the game.

It's not like this is my first post to the thread, or even that I've
been away from the thread for ages.

As far as I can tell, you made an unclear first post and are now just
berating people for calling you on that. If your second post had just
been a clarification of what you actually meant, the whole argument
would have been avoided, I suspect.

Jon

 

[Scott M.]

Given that they are not the same thing and that you're aware what the

OP asked about, why did you reply with a statement about VS.NET in a
way which implied you were talking about .NET?

Because, as you agree, there is a relationship between the IDE and the
Framework.

No-one's disputing that there's a relationship. We're saying your
original post was misleading.

And I've agreed (literally 7 posts ago).

Could you give any examples of where anyone's said that .NET is *not*
"on solid ground"?

No, I can't, but the OP didn't know that, thus his post.

As far as I can tell, you made an unclear first post and are now just
berating people for calling you on that. If your second post had just
been a clarification of what you actually meant, the whole argument
would have been avoided, I suspect.

No, I'm berating people for not letting go of it and continuing to pounce on
it after I corrected my terminology 7 posts ago!