Today, I’ve found that some users are doing a petition to try to reverse the recently announced “.Net 3.0” name to the previously known WinFX tecnologies.
So far, the best arguments I’ve tought and read are that there will be a confusion between C# 3.0, and a few other things, and the name .Net 3.0. There is another curious argument:
Other implementations of the .NET Framework, such as the Compact Framework, SPOT OS, Singularity and Mono will suffer from naming confusions. The CLR team took very, very careful steps to make sure the .NET Framework works on other platforms as well. Mangling the .NET framework with Win32 specific API breaks that, isolating the entire framework to Windows.Â
Well, as someone posted in one of my old posts, what will they call the Compact Framework? 3 1/2?
Well, anyone willing to read the full petition, and vote if thats your will, check it here.
It’s just a name. The technologies involved do not change.
.Net is a Microsoft implementation. Others, such as Mono, are free to name and version their implementations as they see
fit.
There has always been Win32 specific APIs included by Microsoft’s implementation. WinForms are but a single example. Mono is still trying to implement it.
I do not care for the
name (.Net) or versioning (3.0), or the bundling of non-standardized libraries in the “framework”. But it is done. On the development side, not much changes. On the user side, few will understand
what any of it means after it is installed.
It’s time to get over the issue.
I think the main reason to reverse the
name would be the fact that .NET 3.0 as they call it is infact just the .NET 2.0 Framework with a whole bunch of new namespaces and classes.
But isn’t that what we get with Mono as well
?
There are OS specific namespaces and classes there as well.
Blogged some time ago about
this:
http://foxfire.imeem.com/blogs/-MmbCv9I/
Oresama and Tomothy,
I do believe
this will create some problems between TI Managers, Developers and Customers. I’m already seeing a customer asking me why the hell don’t I support the lastest .Net Framework and only 2.0… How
will we explain it plain and simple that there is nothing new in some fields, like ASP.Net, but there was a major version increment?
Mono and others, are free to chose the versioning schema
they use, because they are in fact tracking the changes with Microsoft last releases and because they include specific things, like the Mono.* namespaces – but specially internal things like “a new
GC” or “better memory management” are worty of a major version increment in open-source projects, or other projects with release cicles shorter than MS ones.
Last week or so, someone asked
me, 13 years had passed, but we are still using 585 computers… That person, was thinking about Pentium, and I had explained him about Pentium II, III, IV and D and that we are in 686 era but it
could be considered 868 or 986 it Intel wanted to. This is what I forsee hapening with .Net 3.0 and forward.
Foxfire,
I blogged about it too, and so many had.
Hi ~
API Productions, in association
with Red Frame Productions, are making a documentary about people born on August 3rd.
We are studying the psychology, characteristics, lifestyles, outlooks, emotions, relationships etc etc of
these people to find the similarities, differences and coincidences in our characters.
If you would like to be involved (no matter where you live), please email us at: info@apiproductions.com
with “AUGUST 3rd” in the subject line
Many thanks.
Richard
What I don’t understand is why every new version of both .NET and C# has to have a new major version
number. .NET 1.1 was an exception, but that was just a minor upgrade too. Why can’t they release “.NET 2.5” for example? Or even easier, just use release years instead of version numbers, as is
the latest and greatest in software naming, ref “Office 2007”.
So, can’t we have “Microsoft.NET Framework 2007” too?
I’m against year numbering because what will you name a
bugfix release? 2007.03 (for march) or 2007a or 2007.1 ..
Though I agree that there is not much point in changing to version 3.0 for some new namespaces …