Prev: Reading emails from distribution group and extract attachment
Next: If .NET 4.0 is new.....
From: CSharpner on 3 May 2010 09:51
When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be
there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.

What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or
does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?

TIA
From: Peter Duniho on 3 May 2010 11:29
CSharpner wrote:
> When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
> weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be
> there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.
>
> What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or
> does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?

The former.
From: CSharpner on 3 May 2010 12:18
On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com>
wrote:
> CSharpner wrote:
> > When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
> > weren't really totally new versions of .NET.  They required 2.0 to be
> > there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.
>
> > What about .NET 4.0?  Is it a complete framework all on its own?  Or
> > does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?
>
> The former.

Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?

Sorry for the confusion.
From: PvdG42 on 3 May 2010 15:49

"CSharpner" <csharpner(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c81ddad-40e8-418d-bc53-873e0305a484(a)k41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com>
> wrote:
>> CSharpner wrote:
>> > When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
>> > weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be
>> > there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.
>>
>> > What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or
>> > does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?
>>
>> The former.
>
> Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
> both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
> Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?
>
> Sorry for the confusion.

4.0 is a complete new framework.


From: CSharpner on 3 May 2010 16:19
On May 3, 3:49 pm, "PvdG42" <pvd...(a)toadstool.edu> wrote:
> "CSharpner" <csharp...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c81ddad-40e8-418d-bc53-873e0305a484(a)k41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com>
> > wrote:
> >> CSharpner wrote:
> >> > When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5
> >> > weren't really totally new versions of .NET.  They required 2.0 to be
> >> > there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0.
>
> >> > What about .NET 4.0?  Is it a complete framework all on its own?  Or
> >> > does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)?
>
> >> The former.
>
> > Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in
> > both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former".
> > Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement?
>
> > Sorry for the confusion.
>
> 4.0 is a complete new framework.

Thanks!
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Reading emails from distribution group and extract attachment
Next: If .NET 4.0 is new.....