|
We use C++/CLI heavily and we are just realising how painful developing for a library like .NET is like without intellisense having tried to use the new visual studio, so no visual studio 2010 or .Net 4 for us until this is sorted.
See Microsoft connect issue 501921 if you are in the same situation as us and want to make MS aware of how much of a problem this is.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft scared our customer shitless with the licensing legal review on 2007.
No one will pay for a new product that requires MS OS licence.
Ittay Ophir
ittay.ophir@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
I'm waiting for an official means to rollout 4.0 over our domain and then I can let rip and convert app 50+ apps to 4.0.
Two heads are better than one.
|
|
|
|
|
Your company allows such experiments with its system?
Best regards,
Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
|
|
|
|
|
I make the decisions, so yes.
I can't actually see a problem, we've had every version of .net loaded across our domain.
Two heads are better than one.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not using VS2010 for production or simply not for current project. But personally exploring it for future. Lots of features are there and I love them. I think it will improve the productivity once we start working on it for projects.
Regards - Kunal Chowdhury | Software Developer | Chennai | India | My Blog | My Tweets
|
|
|
|
|
Survey says you can vote till 3rd of May but there is no way to vote??
|
|
|
|
|
You vote from the home page not this page.
John
|
|
|
|
|
i just love .net really cool platform. Recently i had to attend microsoft techEd that released .net 4.0.
I am really excited and eager to see .net 4.0 in my projects. We may be using them very soon. 
|
|
|
|
|
 I agree! maybe they know what the future holds or how it is going to be.
Sir.Dre
|
|
|
|
|
I must disagree.
They had a lot of requests, even from developers, of things that could/should be done.
In the release 3 they only create some of them. So, they already know which ones are required, even if they must also change and correct bugs from the new version, they can schedule future improvements.
I must say I was one wanting generic-recursion for a long time
|
|
|
|
|
They (MS) have feedback about their product much before the final release date.
As an example, I dowloaded, started develop+testing and sending feedback about .NET 4 and Visual Studio 2010 since the first Beta. That was on may-2009 (almost a year ago).
Plus, consider that there are complex features that are announced with much anticipation and being developed, such as the "Compiler Services" first shown by A. Hejslberg on the PDC 2008.
So, based on behaviour/timing of previous releases, plus CTPs and other innovations rounding around (such as the Reactive Extensions), I'm expecting new stuff for the next PDC and a beta for 2011 of either VS-2012 or .NET 5 (or 4.5).
Wake up! The Singularity is coming.
|
|
|
|
|
So, what's the alternative?
Release product, then work in feedback and fixes, then design and create new version for a new release after 4 or 5 years? (a "waterfall").
I see like a "multi-spiral" of products (CLR + Languages + Libraries + Tools), co-evolving together in a good pace.
Wake up! The Singularity is coming.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a large codebase using 3.5, and VS 2008 works great for what I'm doing. I see no reason to change horses just because a new one comes available; I'll wait until the old one is put out to pasture.
And anyway, experience tells me -- in a loud, clear voice -- NEVER to buy any Microsoft product until at least the first service pack has been released. 
|
|
|
|
|
however Windows 7 works well withous SP's
afair there were no problems with newer versions of .net ever or im wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
Feh! Windows 7 is nothing more that Vista sp 3. You can verify this by entering the VER command at the DOS prompt: Vista is Windows 6.0, Win7 is Windows 6.5. They rebranded it because
1. People expect service packs to be free, and MS needed the revenue stream, and
2. The name Vista has become marketing poison: if they has sold this as Vista 2, MS would have had to extend the shelf-life of XP by another five years.
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory.Gadow wrote: Feh! Windows 7 is nothing more that Vista sp 3. You can verify this by entering the VER command at the DOS prompt: Vista is Windows 6.0, Win7 is Windows 6.5. They rebranded it because
Two things.
a) Windows 7 is Windows 6.1, not 6.5 (not that it matters)
b) The major version number was not incremented for compatibility reasons. Windows 7 is a completely new operating system. By your logic, Windows XP is 5.1 (2000 is of course 5.0), and therefore only a service pack of Windows 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
Fahad Sadah wrote: By your logic, Windows XP is 5.1 (2000 is of course 5.0), and therefore only a service pack of Windows 2000.
Ok that made me laugh out loud when I read it. I mean imagine for a second if that were actually true. It's kinda funny
|
|
|
|
|
"Hey Bill, take a look at this! Our 2000 Service Pack became the most widely used operating system in the world"
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, and framework 3.5 SP1 is the living proof of that
besides there's no way to follow Microsoft's .NET framework latest versions with production code since it changes almost annually
I'm sticking to 3.5
|
|
|
|
|
NO. I like to write my own code. 
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Your own code would be to build your own compiler.  
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, done that. That was fun.
As the saying goes, "My compiler can compile your compiler."
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the 21st century old timer.
|
|
|
|
|
omayhemo wrote: Welcome to the 21st century old timer.
Thanks. Any more Y2K code that needs fixin? 
PS - If you don't know the what or why, I'll explain it for ya.
Gary
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
