random ramblings about mostly tech stuff...
Testar nya tangentbordet.. :)
Interesting! I wonder if it's supported by SharpDevelop? And more importantly, what are the major benefits from .NET 2.0? I think Microsoft seems to be a stuck with the versioning inflation as usual. I mean, Java is still in version 1.5 after many years... :)Btw, Camilla is writing at filuren's blog right now. Kind of funny, huh? :-)
Update: I tried the install now but it wanted to squeeze in 1,3 gigs worth on my quite full system partition... even though I explicity told it to install the SDK to another partition. Stupid? Quite so. I made a mistake when installing by making only a 10 gig partition for Windows XP, it seems to be far too little... blargh!
I suppose that it should be supported by SharpDevelop at least apart from the WPF (formerly known as Avalon) bits. There is basically three new technologies bolted onto 2.0, the three being WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation), xml/vector based GUI thingie, WCF (Windows Communication Foundation) all things communication -- and basically my current workfield at work, and WF (Windows Workflow Foundation) no real clue what you're supposed to do with this one, (and the WWF acronym was already taken).Btw, isn't it Java 5 nowadays? :)The "this stuff has to go to the system partition no matter what the user says" syndrome has bitten me also, for what it's worth..
I have "solved" it now by deleting all my Linux partitions + a backup partition I had, freeing around 50 gigs so now I have a whopping 38 gigabyte Windows partition instead... should be enough, at least for now. And if I avoid Vista which I will unless I multiply my RAM, I think it might work out well.I have actually installed the 3.0 SDK by now but haven't had any time to play around with it yet. It's gonna be interesting to try and understand the abbreviations you throw around yourself on this blog... ;-)Yeah, I know Java 1.5 is Java 5 but I think the Java versioning model makes more sense. A major version is where BC is broken. A minor version keeps BC but adds new functionality. So the question is: can a .NET 2.0 application be compiled with .NET 3.0 without any modifications? If so, it should rather be called 2.1 IMO. But then again, the new features might be so important that they justify a major version bump.
Post a Comment