Madhawa Learns To Blog : C#, Java

.net framework 3.0 = .net framework 2.0 + (wcf + wpf + wf + wcs)

Nice to see you here Chandana. :)

Yeah... but what concern me is, it would make more sense if they go it as 2.x (may be 2.1) but not 3.0. Wouldn't it?

I completely, whole-heartedly disagree. The features being added are a major addition. If they were minor, I would say it'd be worthy of a minor release. They aren't, tho; so a major version number increase makes the most sense.

Honestly, I think anyone arguing the name/version is wasting their breath. The name implies the direction Microsoft plans to move forward with. The old name was simply a codename to be used before it was released and marketed. This is typical. Only the recent transparency initiative has changed this model. Despite that, the name doesn't change the capabilities it brings. This should never have been a surprise to people, but unfortunately, those arguing it don't seem to have the big-picture vision for the future that Microsoft does. While unfortunate, it's expected.

The only thing Microsoft needs to watch is confusion about which version will run on which platform.

For instance, .NET 3.0 is a Vista-only platform. So what happens when they update the .NET 2.0 framework? Will they also make the change for the Vista-only version? So then there is .NET 2.1 and .NET 3.1, but users will need to realize that the difference is platform specific.

I would have rather seen them go with .NET Vista or something like that, as its only going to cause confusion in the long run...unless they're going to jam Vista down everyone's throat and start ignoring XP.

D

DE CE DA ERORI MEREU?

ii like