RE: [Eclipsedotnet-developers] .NET 1.1 vs .NET 2.0 again

[<jpp...@gm...>]

Damn.

I just noticed a huge typo in my previous mail. When I said "Putting the
platform back to 1.1 should be too difficult.", what I meant to say was
"Putting the platform back to 1.1 shouldn't be too difficult.".

Amazing how 3 teeny weeny characters can screw the meaning of a sentence
altogether... :\

Sorry for any misinterpretations.

JS


-----Original Message-----
From: Jo=E3o Saraiva [HYPERLINK
"mailto:jpp...@gm..."mailto:jpp...@gm...]
Sent: s=E1bado, 26 de Novembro de 2005 15:31
To: 'ecl...@li...'
Subject: RE: [Eclipsedotnet-developers] .NET 1.1 vs .NET 2.0 again

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=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