Re: Visual Basic.net


"Tom Shelton" <tshelton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B-SdncdAXNGu9XXfRVn-2g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On 2005-07-28, Roy Lewallen <w7el@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have a couple of questions for the .Net fans.
>>
>
>> Finally, I understand that M$ has put out a couple of versions of .Net
>> which aren't entirely compatible. Would I have to include a new ~20 MB
>> runtime in the upgrade each time I move to a later version?
>>
>
> .NET 1.0 and 1.1 are largely compatible. Most of the incompatabilities
> are going backwards - in other words, running 1.1 code on 1.0 runtimes.
> But, that is to be expected since new classes/methods were added in the
> 1.1 class library. But, as long as you don't use those classes methods,
> your code will almost certainly run. I have at least 2 applications that
> do this regularly.
>
> Going forward from 1.0 to 1.1 is much less of a challenge. For the most
> part it just works - there are exceptions, most related to security/bug
> fixes.
>
> Basically, all in all moving from 1.0 to 1.1 is pretty painless. 2.0 is
> the first runtime where I would really say that they broke
> compatability, and that is mostly in taking 2.0 compiled code to older
> runtimes - that flat won't work. There are supposedly a few mores issues
> going the other way as well (1.0/1.1 -> 2.0), then there have been in
> the past...
>

One of the main features of .Net is that you can have both 1.0 and 1.1 on the
same machine, and presumably 2.0 as well. Programs can also easily use their own
versions of things, they don't all have to be part of the global assembly cache.

Yikes, I sound like a .Net programmer, when really I'm not, at least not yet. I
am working on some ASP.Net stuff, though. It is very easy to maintain whatever
versions of stuff you need for your program to run, regardless of whatever other
versions get installed. At least I am finding that it is so far. They really did
do some work on the DLL hell business.




.