[AdamSpeight2008]

Tell us some of our experience (good and/or bad) of the .net framework.

[eclipsed4utoo]

I'm not sure I would put Silverlight in the list. It's not really a version of the .Net framework anymore than ASP.Net is a version. I think the options should be .Net 1.0 - 4.5(though this isn't released yet).

[smohd]

Sure agree with eclipsed4utoo,
For me I use 4.0 and VS2010 IDE with WP7 DK and WP7 for VB.NET in it

[eclipsed4utoo]

I will add one experience...with .Net 2.0 CF. Yeesh, I really wish we could move it up to .Net 3.5 CF. After using everything that's available in .Net 3.5, it really sucks having to code to .Net 2.0, and even worse that I have to deal with the compact framework.

[brep]

I started out with the .NET Framework 4.0, and it in my opinion has some very awesome features in it. I especially think the dynamic keyword is very fun to play with. I also think the Math and String formatting classes and their methods are very interesting.

The IDE's I use are Monodevelop, Sharpdevelop, and Visual C# 2010, but I am mainly using Visual C# 2010 now.

[Curtis Rutland]

eclipsed4utoo, on 10 October 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

I'm not sure I would put Silverlight in the list. It's not really a version of the .Net framework anymore than ASP.Net is a version. I think the options should be .Net 1.0 - 4.5(though this isn't released yet).

I somewhat disagree, since Silverlight isn't technically the same .NET Framework as the actual .NET Framework. Silverlight binaries aren't compatible with .NET, and vice versa. There are many things simply unavailable in Silverlight, and a few things that are only available to it. It's distinct and separate from the standard .NET Framework, though extremely related. That's why it can work on the Mac platform, and .NET can't.

[AdamSpeight2008]

I consider Silverlight a restricted subset of the .net framework, so I included it.

[eclipsed4utoo]

Most of .Net is compatible with Silverlight. There are a few things that are different and a few things that don't exist in Silverlight, but I'd venture to guess 80% of the .Net framework works just fine in Silverlight.

So are we going to add ASP.Net to the list also? You can't use the Session object in WinForms or WPF, so it's got a class that is only available in ASP.Net.

AdamSpeight2008, on 11 October 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:

I consider Silverlight a restricted subset of the .net framework, so I included it.

So we should add Windows Phone 7, .Net compact framework, and the micro framework to the list also.

If we are going to add any .Net technologies that have differences from other technologies, then our list is going to be very long.

For example, if I say I like Silverlight 4, I can't code Silverlight 4 with .Net 3.5. I have to use .Net 4. So Silverlight 4 and .Net 4 are tied together. This is why I say Silverlight shouldn't be on the list. You can't code Silverlight without a specific version of the .Net framework.

[AdamSpeight2008]

eclipsed4utoo: You could add them if you're a pedantic twat.

This post has been edited by AdamSpeight2008: 11 October 2011 - 05:43 AM

[eclipsed4utoo]

The Compact framework is "a restricted subset of the .net framework"(your exact words), so we should add it. Same goes with the micro framework.

WP7 is Silverlight, with additional classes. Since Silverlight is in the list, WP7 should be to.

[Curtis Rutland]

Quote

So are we going to add ASP.Net to the list also? You can't use the Session object in WinForms or WPF, so it's got a class that is only available in ASP.Net.

Actually, you could if you add the right references. It won't be set up properly, but you could add references and create HttpContexts the way a web server does, and you'd have a Session object.

On the other hand, there's no way you could add references to any Silverlight libraries, since Silverlight class libraries are incompatible with standard .NET.

To me, that's the telling thing. ASP.NET is still the standard .NET framework, since all of its assemblies are compatible with any other .NET project. Silverlight is not. Perhaps the Compact Framework behaves that way too, I've never worked with it.

[Kilorn]

So this has devolved into a debate about what constitutes a different version of the .NET framework?

[smohd]

It sounds cool when experts beat each other. We get knowledge from it, because experts fight using knowledgeable words

[eclipsed4utoo]

Curtis Rutland, on 11 October 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:

Quote

So are we going to add ASP.Net to the list also? You can't use the Session object in WinForms or WPF, so it's got a class that is only available in ASP.Net.

Actually, you could if you add the right references. It won't be set up properly, but you could add references and create HttpContexts the way a web server does, and you'd have a Session object.

On the other hand, there's no way you could add references to any Silverlight libraries, since Silverlight class libraries are incompatible with standard .NET.

To me, that's the telling thing. ASP.NET is still the standard .NET framework, since all of its assemblies are compatible with any other .NET project. Silverlight is not. Perhaps the Compact Framework behaves that way too, I've never worked with it.

Ok. I see your point. So we should add WP7 and XNA to the list? Both of those fall under those same guidelines.

[Curtis Rutland]

Now I'm curious, because I'm wondering if I can add all the XNA assemblies to a normal project and use XNA features. Also, I believe Silverlight and W7P share library compatibility, so I believe they should be grouped together.