|
I start at targetting 2.0, and upgrade the target to a higher version when I need functionality of it.
But till now, I never needed a higher version.
|
|
|
|
|
never needed a new .net version? ohhh.
i really would miss generics, anonymous methods and newly also the lamba-expressions and linq at all. we use this stuff heavily in here is makes a lot fun (and is more efficient) then writing the same things again and again  . in our opinion microsoft did a really good job for 2.0, 3.0 and finally for 3.5 so why not use this really cool and handy new stuff. 
this is why we target 3.5 and therefore moved all projects to 3.5 and VS2008. framework-version is no problem for out customers as they don't really care if they have to deploy 2.0 or 3.5 - they have to make the deployment anyway  for other products our installers check for 3.5 and if needed download and install it so deployment of the newer .net framework here is really no issue anymore. 
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with you. There are so many futures in 3.5 that makes life easier
|
|
|
|
|
That's really lucky.. or I'm very unlucky - it seems like the majority of the target audience of most of my .NET programs do not even have .NET 2.0..
|
|
|
|
|
I think the issue with targetting 3 or 3.5 is that it will not run on Windows 2000. Believe it or not, when targetting the masses, this can make a huge difference.
Tim Friesen
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, that can make a difference... a surprising number or people still use Windows 2000
|
|
|
|
|
maybe yes and i agree that our .net apps currently do not target the masses but our customers.
for other apps i wrote targeting the masses i don't really support win2000 anymore. people can try it but if even microsoft does not support it anymore why should my company? this operating system is more then 8 year! one day people have to upgrade to a slightly newer operating system or stay with the old version of my apps. sure, i not only support the newest OS but win2000 ist just to old to focus on this audience and therefore make all the development less efficient.
you're right if you core-audience is still on win2000 then probably you have to stay with all the old technology.
|
|
|
|
|
I primarily target 3.5, yet make sure my apps are 2.0 compatible for the lazy people who aren't sure what version they have... 2.0 seeming to be the most popular with people who have Windows XP SP3... 
*Shrugs*
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
|
why not to impove your installers and make sure they have installed (or get installed) 3.5 during your applications setup?
|
|
|
|
|
Makes the resulting file too big, or, when people see the size of 3.5, ignore the application anyways...
Slow internet in this 'ere country... (Download at +- 10kb/s) 
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
our installed downloads the 3.5 framework (if needed) during setup from the microsoft server. its a questions of mindset: finding solutions or problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Same as you, we have a commercial apps and can't afford to target the 3.5 stuff yet. Also I have found nothing of value to us in 3.5 to date, maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
Also for me. All of our clients have XP SP2 and .Net 2.0. Some of them have only .Net 1.1 and XP SP1.
|
|
|
|
|
you guys didn't find additional value in 3.5???? 
for example check your code for foreach-loops and think about replace most of them with one simple line of Linq? for me not only this feature is a real time-saver but others as well (improved support for generics just kicks up your library-code.
as i wrote before, me team here got used to the new features of 3.5 and will not miss it anymore - they really rock your code!
question: if your client still use Win9x you would not recommend them to update a little more accurate OS to use the latest version of your rocket-science apps but write them in plain C++ using MVC? i personally our company then prefers to update the customers to at least WinXP (which is also 6 years old). getting installers to check und maybe automatically .net to 3.5 is no big deal but saves you guys a lot of time during development process. if you prefere to stay with 1.1 (and therefore having way more expensive development process / turnaround-times) just because some users don't like to upgrade - you're fine. 
|
|
|
|
|
"you guys didn't find additional value in 3.5???? "
>>>Yes, 3.5 is great. But it's not our job to update PC of our clients (only non profit organization), they generaly paid fo a another society for the maintenance. So when the OS is out of date, we can just warn it, not upgrade. (We some client who have win98  ..., mostly winXP SP2, and none winXP SP3)
I use only .Net 2.0 with NHibernate for instance ( but i aim to upgrade for 3.5 as soon it can be possible !)
|
|
|
|
|
I target 3.5 .... coz ... 
i need WPF!!!
When I was born, I was so surprised I didn't talk for a year and a half.
|
|
|
|
|
But, did you *need* WPF before the existence of WPF, what could you be doing if the existance of WPH never came.....? 
|
|
|
|
|
I have to target 2.0 - but I play around with 3.5. LINQ is a really good feature. It will become outstanding when the promised support for various databases besides SQL can be accessed (here, it's useful to be able to connect to FoxPro and Excel at times).
Just for fun, when I was first using LINQ, I used two comboBoxes as though they were table in a database: running SQL-ish queries against their data, creating joins, sorts, etc., with no sweat.
If I could add LINQ to my other-users software, I would do so in a heartbeat. Buying into MicroSloth made me rather uncomfortable - but it really is a fine extension.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: I have to target 2.0 - but I play around with 3.5. LINQ is a really good feature. It will become outstanding when the promised support for various databases besides SQL can be accessed (here, it's useful to be able to connect to FoxPro and Excel at times).
by the way: linq is not only about databases (what is called DLinq anyway) but also about any datasource. this also includes in-memory objects. this is what my team is using linq for at most. most of the foreach-loops where replace with a simple linq-method call.
eg.
int myZipCode = 55455
var filteredCustomers = customers.Where(customer => customer.Zip == myZipCode);
...
try to use linq for your in-memory data / objects - its really cool and efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
You should have read the rest of my post: using comboBoxes as data sources is using memory objects. I also combined these, (as a more advanced exercise and discovered some limitations) with dBase queries. The only linq version I didn't do much with is XLINQ.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
sorry, didn't get this one 
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't found a single reason to use Linq yet. It doesn't seem to do anything that you couldn't do before and only seems to be a syntax shortcut more than anything else to provide ways to do things you shouldn't or wouldn't do in real life.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
|
John C wrote: syntax shortcut more than anything else
That's all it was designed for. It's just designed to take away the work from you, sure you could create an ORM and then implement the delay-loading or whatever they call it but how does that saying go, why bother writing it when someone else has? (Or words to that effect).
John C wrote: things you shouldn't or wouldn't do in real life.
Since I'm feeling particularly dumb at the moment (been working away from the finesse of software and using sledge hammers on Land Rovers) can you explain?
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: It's just designed to take away the work from you, sure you could create an ORM and then implement the delay-loading or whatever they call it but how does that saying go, why bother writing it when someone else has?
Well I find it harder to read for one thing but ultimately we have a lot of code written already and I can't see how jamming this in would affect that positively. Going forward on the next big thing I might have a look at it when it's matured more.
Ed.Poore wrote: Since I'm feeling particularly dumb at the moment (been working away from the finesse of software and using sledge hammers on Land Rovers) can you explain?
I was thinking of the example someone gave somewhere else in this thread where they were querying the contents of two combo boxes at the UI using LINQ to affect some kind of change. That just screams bad design principles. I never thought of doing stuff like that with it and now I can see all sorts of abuse and misue potential with it now that I've seen that example.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it."
-Sam Levenson
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
