.net v1 or .net v2 4

[sacsac]

I'm just about to start migrating from VB6 to .NET using VS2003, and I'm confused about the different available versions of .NET. I've already got .NET V1 on my computer, but should I upgrade to .NET V2 before starting out, or does it not really matter? I'm concerend that I'll spend much time developing on one platform, only to discover that my clients can not run the app because their version of .net is incompatible!

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

[RiverGuy]

Has anyone tried running a .Net 1.1 program on a computer with only .Net 2.0 installed?

According to this article,

http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/03/CLRInsideOut/default.aspx,

there is backwards compatibility (at least to some degree).

 

[ThatRickGuy]

Old VB apps are still supported (to some extent) A quick search on Microsoft.com revieled:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q196285

which has the runtime library required to run VB3 applications, just incase you are running any DOS/Windows 3.1 software 12 years after it was depricated.

Microsoft (and every training, class, and seminar) has stated that there is no reason to convert working applications from COM based software to .Net. If your legacy VB3 app works fine, then leave it in VB3. Just because there is a shiney new language doesn't mean you HAVE to convert everything to it.

The frame work is really not that limiting. I mean, you have two frameworks to worry about over a 4 year period of time with no existing plan for another one (from anything that I've heard). Which means with the current schedule you are looking at maybe 3 frameworks a decade. Compare that to working with COM based software, what are the chances that any 3 referenced dll will change over a decade? As you pointed out, over the last 10 years most leading edge customers have gone through 4+ OSs. If for nothing other than stability, .Net is pretty rock solid.

You can't run two versions of the same COM dll at the same time. Which means someone could update a completely unrelated application on the PC and the COM solution would break. Being able to run both versions of the framework (or all three if you really want to) on the same computer ensures you that updating one application in VS2k5 will not break or change any functionality of your older .Net apps.

Maintaining functionality in your apps and database is your responsibility as a programmer, If you make a new version of an app, regardless as to what version it is, you need to ensure the functionality your users expect is there. The bright side is that now, you can run the legacy .Net v1.1 application and the brand new .Net v2.0 application side by side.

.Net can both reference COM DLLs and can be referenced by COM applications. I've had to do this a couple of times to give third party developers (working in Java/VB6) a way to access our libraries.

-Rick

VB.Net Forum forum796 forum855 ASP.NET Forum
I believe in killer coding ninja monkeys.

 

[jshurst]

Good post Rick. I have not been concerned in the least about different versions of the framework. I know that my old apps will function exactly as planned even if I put the new one on my computer. Also the .net 1.1 framework is only around 35 Megs so it isn't like space is an issue.

And as far as older things "not being supported," if I choose to run Windows 3.1 in my environment then that's my choice. It might be a little harder to find support, but that's just how this crazy world of technology works. Long live the .net framework!

I see Mike's point, but let's just agree to disagree ;-)

 

[LNBruno]

I agree with jshurst, I think, unless I disagree... LOL!

And I understand what you're saying, Rick, and, gosh darn it, you're right.

THERE! I SAID IT! ;-)

Like I said, yesterday was a long and frustrating day... Thanks for putting up with me!

< M!ke >

 

[ThatRickGuy]

Hey Mike, we've all been there. And I'd much rather be wrong and learn than right and bull headed.

And I also find it annoying the 2.0 isn't backwards compatible with 1.1. I haven't worked with the new framework, so I don't know what any of the compatibility breaking changes are. But I have heard of a lot of great features in 2.0. Anyways, we're all going to run into these situations were we are maintaining DOS based FoxPro systems, Access apps, a bunch of matured VB6 apps, and the new bread of .Net apps. Heck, my job as of late has been 75% maintenance, 20% documentation, and maybe 5% development. What I wouldn't give to have all of those applications written in the same language, using the same DAL and logging systems, and the same shared libraries.

-Rick

VB.Net Forum forum796 forum855 ASP.NET Forum
I believe in killer coding ninja monkeys.

 

[chrissie1]

Is this the thread were I need to post my opinion?

Christiaan Baes
Belgium

"My new site" - Me

 

[bboffin]

Referring to using the Visual Studio Express tools alongside VS 2003, these all require .NET Framework 2.0 so trying to mix development with VS 2003 isn't a great idea especially as far as Web Apps are concerned where the code model has changed enormously (consider master pages and partial classes) with the default for development being JIT compilation. I don't think you could move a web app from VWD to VS 2003 without a lot of pain.

I even had some problems moving an app that I had started to write in Visual Web Developer Express to VS 2005. I ended up by starting a new solution and adding each of the files individually from the VWD project.

That said the Express tools all produce fully working, deployable, unrestricted applictions within their built in limitations such no template for building a service. If you know what you're doing you can of course adapt your code externally to do anything. The command line compiler has no restrictions.



Bob Boffin

 

[LNBruno]

We could always go back to

echo Do you want to play a game? Enter "Y" or "N"
fc con nul /lb1 /n | date | find "1:" > en#er.bat
echo set value=%%5> enter.bat
call en#er.bat
del en?er.bat > nul
if "%value%"=="N" echo Good-bye
if "%value%"=="Y" echo The game is "Global Thermonuclear War"
set value=

< M!ke >

 

[ThatRickGuy]

LOL, odd enough I'm in a Windows Scripting and WSH class right now.

-Rick

VB.Net Forum forum796 forum855 ASP.NET Forum
I believe in killer coding ninja monkeys.

 

[eyeswideclosed]

Interesting read guys, just my 2 cents...I'd rather have a good carpenter with an old toolbox than a bad carpenter with a new toolbox, I've personally witnessed improperly written .NET 2.0 apps bring servers to a grinding halt under heavy load (due to ignorance of how to use IDisposable and the GC, among other things), while similarly heavily-loaded but properly written 1.1 and even classic asp and VB6 apps purr like a kitten.

 

[jshurst]

Yeah, I agree, but a poorly written app is a poorly written app regardless of language or version. The new visual studio editions are aiming to provide ease of use along with advanced programming features.