I heard visual studio C# 2005 can make .net 1.1

This is a discussion on I heard visual studio C# 2005 can make .net 1.1 within the C# Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; I heard before that if you use a comand line compiler with visual C# 2005 beta you can make .net ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    731

    I heard visual studio C# 2005 can make .net 1.1

    I heard before that if you use a comand line compiler with visual C# 2005 beta you can make .net 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 exes. But you have to use a comand line compiler. Is this true? (I think I was messing around in visual C# 2005 and read that inside the program)

  2. #2
    Registered User Frobozz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    546
    Visual Studio itself is just an IDE and not a compiler. It uses the command line version of whatever it is targetting for that year. In the case of 2005, it is targetting 2.0.

    If you use a command line compiler, you can compile for whichever version you want. Personally I don't see why Microsoft doesn't allow you to change the compiler used. :P

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    731
    omg so it is possible!

    Now for the hard part, I never really learned how to use a comand line to good. But I will search and stuff.

    Thanks!

  4. #4
    Registered User Frobozz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    546
    It isn't too hard. When I first started learning .NET I used the command line only. The fun part is having to type up everything when you go to compile. Unless of course you use a batch file or something similar.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    731
    yah alright. bathc files... right. I gotta read up later than.

    Thanks.

  6. #6
    Banned nickname_changed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by Frobozz
    Personally I don't see why Microsoft doesn't allow you to change the compiler used. :P
    I believe this is because A) so much of the IDE's features rely on features in the compiler it is designed for, ie intellisense for generics, and B) they don't want people building 1.1 apps in 2005. They want you using 2.0. If you want 1.1, use VS 2003.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    731
    always have to ruine a perfectly good idea?

    Well it was fun while it lasted.

  8. #8
    Banned nickname_changed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    986
    Sorry

  9. #9
    Registered User Frobozz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    546
    I imagine the true motivation behind it is to force companies to upgrade to have an IDE for future versions.

  10. #10
    Banned nickname_changed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    986
    Quote Originally Posted by Frobozz
    I imagine the true motivation behind it is to force companies to upgrade to have an IDE for future versions.
    Contrary to popular opinion, I think this is a GOOD THING.

    One of the biggest gripes people had with Microsoft was that their old Word '95 documents weren't compatible with Word '97 (or whatever versions it was). People whinged and whined for years about it. All because Microsoft decided not to be backwards compatible with older versions. Microsoft copped a lot of heat over this.

    But Microsoft is a smart company. They said "I'm so sick of these people whinging and moaning, wah wah wah, we'll avoid this problem in the future". So since that day, the Word file format has been locked to the features of Word 97. Microsoft add a few new features to Word, but none of them can be saved because it will stuff up when you try and open your Word XP documents in Word 97.

    But of course, people whinged and moaned again, because "Microsoft are so un-innovative, Office hasn't changed for years!". DAMN RIGHT IT HASN'T, AND IT'S YOUR OWN FAULT!

    Now, when they developed .NET, Microsoft sat down for a while and did some soul searching. They asked themselves "if we were going to start fresh, what would we do to do everything perfect?". .NET was made. They added things like COM interop for backwards compatibility, but the whole framework was written with new standards. I think they did it all perfect.

    Now, .NET 2.0 is coming out. Visual Studio 2005 is coming out. There are a ton of new intellisense and refactoring tools in Visual Studio 2005, and a lot of them make use of .NET 2.0 features. Microsoft have a choice - they can support both 2.0 and 1.1, and not show the new features when developing a 1.1 application, or they could just count on people upgrading to 2.0. They can get stuck in the world of maintaining backwards compatibility for years, or they can move on.

    One reason Microsoft don't ship with a static linker (ie., you can't embed the .NET framework into your compiled EXE so that other computers don't need .NET installed, although there are third party apps that let you do this) is because Microsoft will be improving .NET. 2.0 fixes a number of bugs and possible security risks in 1.1. Microsoft WANT you to upgrade to 2.0. They want users to upgrade, they want developers to upgrade.

    There are still a bazillion Word 97 users out there. They all say "it works fine for us, we don't need to upgrade". It only works fine because Microsoft is still maintaining that backwards compatibility for these users, and innovation is lost. Now, this is understandable from users because it costs money to upgrade versions of Word, and some just can't afford it.

    But .NET is free. Microsoft don't want to be writing features in .NET 90.67 that have to be backwards compatible with .NET 1.0, just because Aunt May doesn't want to do a little download. And product developers want their code to run on every machine, they don't want calls from Aunt May saying their product doesn't work on her machine.

    So Microsoft is making developers who use VS2005 to use .NET 2.0. You should be happy. Because when you use 2.0, your customers will be forced to upgrade. Luckily, all the upgrades will come as part of Windows Update, and they happen maybe once every 18 months at most, so life is easy for you and your users.

    Be happy they make you use 2.0. You'll thank them in the long run.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    731
    yah yah.... I guess. But they should FORCE people to get .net 1.1 and stuff. Cause I know people who don't have it and can't becasue lets say there parents don't want to dwonload somtin. But if it is a forced update they would have to.

  12. #12
    Hpl
    Hpl is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2

    Question question..

    Just out of curiousity, alot of software is being developed using Visual Studio.net 2003 that uses 1.1 of the .NET Framework.
    If everyone from developers to users upgrade to 2.0 - will they still be able to use software that was made using 1.1?

  13. #13
    * Death to Visual Basic * Devil Panther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by stovellp
    I believe this is because A) so much of the IDE's features rely on features in the compiler it is designed for, ie intellisense for generics, and B) they don't want people building 1.1 apps in 2005. They want you using 2.0. If you want 1.1, use VS 2003.
    Can I upgrade my .NET to 2.0 and still use VS 2003 ?

    And please tell me that MS did something right and 2.0 support older versions as well
    "I don't suffer from insanity but enjoy every minute of it" - Edgar Allen Poe

    http://www.Bloodware.net - Developing free software for the community.

  14. #14
    Registered User Frobozz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    546
    Quote Originally Posted by Devil Panther
    Can I upgrade my .NET to 2.0 and still use VS 2003 ?

    And please tell me that MS did something right and 2.0 support older versions as well
    I'm sure 2.0 is backwards compatible with 1.1 and 1.0 (anybody notice a similarity between .NET versions and USB versions? ).

    As for using 2.0 with VS 2003, you can't. Each release of Visual Studio is literally hardcoded to a particular framework version. If you want to use 2.0, I suggest you get VS 2005. It's due out in November. The express editions are $50 each but rather weak. However, the standard edition is $300 and comes with all the languages I believe. Not too bad I suppose if you want to use .NET.

  15. #15
    * Death to Visual Basic * Devil Panther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    768
    Ok, so if I upgrade my windows with 2.0 the VS 2003 won't work, or will the VS continue to use 1.1 ? Since I wish to be able to use 2.0 based apps but continue to code with 1.1
    "I don't suffer from insanity but enjoy every minute of it" - Edgar Allen Poe

    http://www.Bloodware.net - Developing free software for the community.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Visual Studio 2005 + Offline
    By rbachu21 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 04:48 PM
  2. C++ std routines
    By siavoshkc in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-28-2006, 12:13 AM
  3. Using 'if' with char arrays or string objects
    By c++_n00b in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 06-06-2002, 09:04 PM
  4. Visual Studio .NET beta 2
    By Marky_Mark in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-05-2001, 10:28 AM
  5. Visual J#
    By mfc2themax in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2001, 02:41 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21