Coffeehouse Thread

12 posts

WinFX and the ".NET 3.0" misnomer

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    reinux

    Anyone interested in getting WinFX back to WinFX?

    http://www.petitiononline.com/winfx/petition.html


    I've listed reasons there so, read up.

  • User profile image
    jb43081

    reinux wrote:
    Anyone interested in getting WinFX back to WinFX?

    http://www.petitiononline.com/winfx/petition.html


    I've listed reasons there so, read up.


    I actually blogged about this the week after Tech Ed.

    I agree that "3.0" is maybe not the best name, but I can see a certain logic in dropping the WinFX name and making these technologies a really integral part of the .NET platform.

    IMHO, one of Java's weaknesses is the vast sea of frameworks and flavors. Don't get me wrong; third party and add-on frameworks are powerful and useful, but I think too many just confuse and muddle things. I think Microsoft wants the components of WinFX to be thought of as major parts of any .NET application built from here on out (especially WCF and WPF) and presenting it as an add on framework or API just doesn't instill the sense of urgency (right or wrong) that Microsoft wants.

    That being said, the name change to 3.0 has caused some confusion for my clients. Many think that there are breaking changes between 2.0 and 3.0 and that a new version of Visual Studio is required. So, based on that, I think it would have been better to make it 2.X or SP-whatever.

    Although I do think it's important for people (especially IT people and developers) to be able to make the mental break between the .NET platform and the Visual Studio IDE.

    Just my $0.02

    BTW, I personally LOVE WCF! Especially if you use Service Factory to create your services! Definitely my favorite part of WinFX/.Net 3.0/whatever. Tongue Out

    J

  • User profile image
    Yggdrasil

    jb43081 wrote:
    I agree that "3.0" is maybe not the best name, but I can see a certain logic in dropping the WinFX name and making these technologies a really integral part of the .NET platform.


    I agree. This hybrid stage - with both 2.0 and 3.0 coexisting and complementing each-other - is just a transitional change. Future versions will dispense with this distinction and just have the entire framework - including System.ServiceModel, System.Workflow and the rest. Choosing to place them all under the System namespace actually requires that they be integrated with the framework.

    Vista supports .NET 3.0. This automatically includes back-level support for .NET 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0 - it's just that there are breaking changes to 1.1 and 1.0, and none to 2.0. THink of it that way and it all makes sense. Smiley

    That said, a good way to prevent confusion is to have a full .NET 3.0 installation that includes the older 2.0 bits as well as the newer namespaces. That will make the transition easier.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    What Yggdrasil says is made very clear in the video on C9 about this.

    I prefer ".NET 3.0" to "WinFX".

  • User profile image
    jmacdonagh

    I'm all for including WinFX into the .NET framework. I really don't think "3.0" is the best name for it though, simple because it will cause problems with C# 3.0 is released. I'd rather call it .NET 2.8 or so.

  • User profile image
    BryanF

    At this point they should just stick to their current plan. Should it be 2.1? 2.5? 2.8? WinFX? Honestly, what it "should" be is largely subjective. Given that a final release is mere months away, Microsoft needs to be communcating the value of this new platform, and renaming the technology (again!) just makes a mess of things. You can make the case that the current name is imperfect, but let it be.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    jmacdonagh wrote:
    I'm all for including WinFX into the .NET framework. I really don't think "3.0" is the best name for it though, simple because it will cause problems with C# 3.0 is released. I'd rather call it .NET 2.8 or so.


    You need to watch the video on C9 about this.
    It is C# 3.0... no core changes to C# .NET 2.0... watch the video?

  • User profile image
    jmacdonagh

    JohnAskew wrote:
    
    jmacdonagh wrote: I'm all for including WinFX into the .NET framework. I really don't think "3.0" is the best name for it though, simple because it will cause problems with C# 3.0 is released. I'd rather call it .NET 2.8 or so.


    You need to watch the video on C9 about this.
    It is C# 3.0... no core changes to C# .NET 2.0... watch the video?


    Yeah I understand that. My comment might have been a little confusing. What I meant was that the .NET Framework 3.0 is still the old 2.0 compilers and CLR with the WinFX libraries. This will cause confusion when C# 3.0 (with LINQ enhancements, etc...) is released (language, compilers, CLR, etc...).

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    I somehow understand why they named it .NET 3.0. The WPF, WCF, etc. are nice new libaries which are also great new innovations in some parts...

    But I think a new major version should only be released when the compilers or the runtime is updated... .NET 2.5 or 2.1 is a better name instead of .NET 3.0

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    jmacdonagh wrote:
    
    JohnAskew wrote: 
    jmacdonagh wrote: I'm all for including WinFX into the .NET framework. I really don't think "3.0" is the best name for it though, simple because it will cause problems with C# 3.0 is released. I'd rather call it .NET 2.8 or so.


    You need to watch the video on C9 about this.
    It is C# 3.0... no core changes to C# .NET 2.0... watch the video?


    Yeah I understand that. My comment might have been a little confusing. What I meant was that the .NET Framework 3.0 is still the old 2.0 compilers and CLR with the WinFX libraries. This will cause confusion when C# 3.0 (with LINQ enhancements, etc...) is released (language, compilers, CLR, etc...).


    You are right. I would hope they give it the version 3.5 along with .NET at the time of the LINQ Visual Studio version.
    I did not realize that C# has a seperate version number from .NET!

  • User profile image
    kettch

    JohnAskew wrote:
    
    jmacdonagh wrote: 
    JohnAskew wrote: 
    jmacdonagh wrote: I'm all for including WinFX into the .NET framework. I really don't think "3.0" is the best name for it though, simple because it will cause problems with C# 3.0 is released. I'd rather call it .NET 2.8 or so.


    You need to watch the video on C9 about this.
    It is C# 3.0... no core changes to C# .NET 2.0... watch the video?


    Yeah I understand that. My comment might have been a little confusing. What I meant was that the .NET Framework 3.0 is still the old 2.0 compilers and CLR with the WinFX libraries. This will cause confusion when C# 3.0 (with LINQ enhancements, etc...) is released (language, compilers, CLR, etc...).


    You are right. I would hope they give it the version 3.5 along with .NET at the time of the LINQ Visual Studio version.
    I did not realize that C# has a seperate version number from .NET!


    For that matter, so does Visual Basic. We are currently on version 8 I believe? I think that there should be a clear distinction between language features, and features that come from new namespaces. The developers shouldn't feel compelled to delay, or rush certain products just to sync up the version numbers. The only time it should be necessary to line up releases is in the case of framework features that require language support, as in generics and LINQ.

  • User profile image
    reinux

    Well I'm most worried about the whole naming trapping .NET on Win32. Even on Compact .NET Framework and Singularity and all that it's going to hurt.

    Back with Windows Forms and stuff it wasn't such a big deal because Mono could promise to implement it sooner or later (and it wasn't important for enterprise applications), but WinFX is a totally different matter.

    Nearly everything in 2.0 is portable; nothing in 3.0 is portable, so it's dangerous to call LinQ "3.5"... it implies that everything onward is unportable. Sure technically they can still steer themselves away from that, but this is already enough to scare away absolutely everyone.

    I mean come on, they put SO much effort into making sure .NET is portable... they did FreeBSD compiles on each check-in, the whole BCL is platform neutral, they published all the specs. And now they risk throwing that all out.


    If it weren't for that it wouldn't bug me too much. It'd just be an aesthetic thing.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.