Menu
▾
▴
eclipsedotnet-developers
|
From: Kunle O. <kun...@vi...> - 2005-11-26 13:47:04
|
Hi, I think I've had a change of heart on this. I still agree that the availability of .NET 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 C# Express, and the fact that .NET 2.0 and .NET 1.1 can co-exist on a machine is evidence that a = .NET 2.0-only restriction isn't particularly onerous. Nevertheless, I'm uneasy because nothing in the platform *needs* .NET = 2.0 features. VS.NET 2005 (including C# Express) is a CPU/RAM/DISK hog. Some people might prefer the leaner VS.NET 2003 unless the newer version adds real value. I'm not sure that it does in this case. Anyways, just my 2=A2... Kunle |
|
From: <jpp...@gm...> - 2005-11-26 15:32:38
|
That's a good point. Eclipse.NET really isn't using anything special in = .NET 2.0 as of yet (except for Generics ). The reason I recently migrated the platform to 2.0 was because this = would have to be done eventually, although I admit that I might have been = hasty in this matter. Another reason was the redefinition of the Eclipse.NET GUI = to be based on SWF rather than SWT, and SWF 2.0 offers some enhancements = over the previous version (from what I've read: new controls, previous = controls expose some more properties from the underlying Win32 controls. Also, = one very cool feature is LayoutManagers; it appears Microsoft has finally = come to its senses and looked at Swing, instead of just looking at Java's = class library). But, since this new GUI will take some time to be developed, = there is no really good reason for the platform to adopt .NET 2.0 right now. Putting the platform back to 1.1 should be too difficult. The only thing from 2.0 I'm using is Generics, and that's nothing a thorough search for "using System.Collections.Generics;" and some patience can't take care = of. However, in defense of 2.0 and from what I've been seeing/reading, using generic collections is faster (not to mention less error-prone) than = using "normal" collections (and, considering the implications of = boxing/unboxing when using these "normal" collections, I don't find that hard to = believe), although I'm a bit skeptic regarding the values that Microsoft provides = (2x faster for collections using reference types, and 3x for value types). All that said, I am not sure about what position to take regarding this subject. David and Rui, what are your thoughts on this? JS ------------------------------------ Jo=E3o Paulo Pedro Mendes de Sousa Saraiva Estudante jps...@ne... jpp...@ho... jpp...@gm... Rua Mateus Vicente, 9, 10=B0 Dto 1500-445 Lisboa tel: 217267899 mobile: 965403291 IM: jpp...@ho... http://mega.ist.utl.pt/~jmss/ ------------------------------------ -----Original Message----- From: ecl...@li... [mailto:ecl...@li...] On Behalf = Of Kunle Odutola Sent: s=E1bado, 26 de Novembro de 2005 14:03 To: ecl...@li... Subject: [Eclipsedotnet-developers] .NET 1.1 vs .NET 2.0 again Hi, I think I've had a change of heart on this. I still agree that the availability of .NET 2.0 and Visual Studio 2005 C# Express, and the fact that .NET 2.0 and .NET 1.1 can co-exist on a machine is evidence that a = .NET 2.0-only restriction isn't particularly onerous. Nevertheless, I'm uneasy because nothing in the platform *needs* .NET = 2.0 features. VS.NET 2005 (including C# Express) is a CPU/RAM/DISK hog. Some people might prefer the leaner VS.NET 2003 unless the newer version adds real value. I'm not sure that it does in this case. Anyways, just my 2=A2... Kunle ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log = files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id=16865&op=3Dick _______________________________________________ Eclipsedotnet-developers mailing list Ecl...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipsedotnet-developers -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: = 25-11-2005 =20 --=20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: = 25-11-2005 =20 |
|
From: <jpp...@gm...> - 2005-11-27 14:28:32
|
I've been giving some more thought into this matter, as it is quite important for the development of the project. I think the best way to go at this is by gathering all the pros and cons of using .NET 2.0 we can think of, and then make an educated choice. Here are the cons I have on my mind: - The user NEEDS to have .NET 2.0 installed on his machine (although .NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 work fine on the same machine). - MS Visual Studio 2005 is a CPU/RAM/DISK hog, and VS2003 is much lighter. (1) - The platform isn't actually using any .NET 2.0 features as of yet (except for Generics, and that is easily taken out). And the pros: - .NET 2.0 can load and execute .NET 1.1 assemblies. (2) - .NET 2.0 has some useful features for the developer, such as Generics. (1) I agree with this. However, VS2003 does have a very annoying (in my opinion) behaviour: it locks the assemblies that projects reference. For example, if you have a solution with 2 projects, A and B, and project B references the DLL output of project A (I mean the actual output file, not just the project). You can only build the solution once. If you compile A, then B, and then try to compile A again (for some reason, like changing code), the compiler will complain that it cannot copy the output file to the destination directory. This was a VERY BIG pain in the a** during pre-VS2005 development of the Eclipse.NET platform, as I'm sure you can guess... VS2005 does not have this behaviour, and you wouldn't believe how relieved I was when I noticed this while trying it out (David and Rui saw it, however ;) ). (2) I mentioned this point because the contrary is not true, i.e., .NET 1.1 can not load .NET 2.0 assemblies. This means that, with .NET 2.0, people that develop plugins for the platform can develop and compile plugins in both .NET 1.1 and/or .NET 2.0 (although .NET 1.1 plugins would probably be considered "legacy plugins"). With .NET 1.1, developers can only use .NET 1.1 (no 2.0). The question that is hammering my mind, regarding this point, is: "Are the features in .NET 2.0 enough reason for us to support it (right away)?". I'd like to have as many opinions on this as possible, as just one (my) opinion is certainly too biased to be considered as "correct". OK, nothing more is coming to mind right now. Please complete this list as much as possible. Meanwhile, I'm taking a look at the SharpDevelop IDE too, as a possible replacement for Visual Studio. Maybe the answer could be lying in the change of the IDE, instead of changing the .NET framework. Opinions (preferably, ones that are different than mine) are most welcome. Regards, JS -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.8/183 - Release Date: 25-11-2005 |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X