Changes in 2005.

[Mark Broadbent]

This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive or
informative replies.

Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to Framework
classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to replace old ones
(that only appear to offer a different location in the
framework) -ConfigurationMa nager seems to be one.
And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had Closing
...now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is in the designer
(new one) and one isn't.
What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names fer gawd
sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly than it should
be.

Br,

Mark.

[Mark Jerde]

Re: Changes in 2005.

I found this article interesting. See "The MSDN Magazine Camp."

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html

-- Mark

Mark Broadbent wrote:[color=blue]
> This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive
> or informative replies.
>
> Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to
> Framework classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to
> replace old ones (that only appear to offer a different location in
> the framework) -ConfigurationMa nager seems to be one.
> And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had
> Closing ..now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is
> in the designer (new one) and one isn't.
> What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names
> fer gawd sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly
> than it should be.
>
> Br,
>
> Mark.[/color]

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

Re: Changes in 2005.

Mark,

It's all about backwards compatability. People have written
applications using these APIs, and to consciously make a breaking change is
not something that is viewed upon favorably by those that use the APIs.

In the specific case of the FormClosing and FormClosed events, these
events were added because the original Closed and Closing events didn't
convey information to the event handler why the form was closing (which was
something that even VB6 offered).

In the end, APIs will always change, and it's not always possible to
make the new versions work with the old declarations. MS has always been
committed to backwards compatability, so I am not surprized by them taking
this approach as .NET 2.0 comes out.

Hope this helps.


--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m

"Mark Broadbent" <nospam@nospam. com> wrote in message
news:OB0U5rigFH A.3912@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive or
> informative replies.
>
> Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to Framework
> classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to replace old
> ones (that only appear to offer a different location in the
> framework) -ConfigurationMa nager seems to be one.
> And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had Closing
> ..now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is in the
> designer (new one) and one isn't.
> What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names fer
> gawd sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly than it
> should be.
>
> Br,
>
> Mark.
>[/color]

[Dan Bass]

Re: Changes in 2005.

[color=blue]
> In the end, APIs will always change, and it's not always possible to
> make the new versions work with the old declarations. MS has always been
> committed to backwards compatability, so I am not surprized by them taking
> this approach as .NET 2.0 comes out.[/color]

Would be nice if VS.Net 2005 compiled to .Net 1.1... After all, 2003
compiles to unmanaged code, all be it the code needs adjusting to get it to
compile.

I find the new IDE great to use, but don't necessarily want to insist on the
client having .Net 2.0.

Do you have any comments on that article posted by Mark Jerde? I found it
most interesting.

[Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]]

Re: Changes in 2005.

Dan,

I don't think that expecting VS.NET 2005 to compile for the .NET 1.1
runtime is reasonable. Just like with VB3/4/5/6 etc etc, you couldn't
compile an application for a previous runtime. The only environment that I
know of that allowed this is C++ (but I'm not completely sure about this),
since there was no runtime to speak of.

VS.NET 2003 does not compile to unmanaged code. For all managed code,
the JIT compiler handles the compilation to unmanaged code from IL. The
only unmanaged code that VS.NET can create is unmanaged C++, which VS.NET
2005 supports as well.

I see it the same way I see it as the upgrade from VB5 to VB6 (I'm a bit
young, so I wasn't around for many other major shifts like this). The way I
see it, yes, the client has to upgrade from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0, but with
Windows Update cramming the new runtimes down your throat (and WU will push
2.0 when it is released), as well as the fact that different .NET runtimes
can run side-by-side, I'd MUCH rather take .NET over previous runtimes.

I took the time to read the article posted by Mark Jerde. While I do
think that Joel is on crack (at least when he wrote the article), to his
credit, the article is over a year old. There are too many instances in the
article where he lists a specific problem which can be specifically
addressed with .NET solutions (or other solutions not .NET related even,
just .NET makes them very easy). An example of this is his statement about
web applications not providing the rich UI experience. Smart clients are a
way to do this. It's not easy (but it's not overly hard either), it's just
new, and people are too afraid to come out from under the protective blanket
they THINK they have. While this isn't the cause for eveyone to resist new
ways of doing things (I do think ROI is a valid reason to not move to new
technologies whenever they appear), it certainly is a big one, IMO.

There are also a few areas in the article where he is outright wrong.
One of the biggest errors is where he states that WinFX is a replacement for
the Win32 API. This simply is not true. It simply provides new
functionality. SendMessage and CreateFile are not going anywhere (the
framework wouldn't work if that was the case). This goes back to people not
liking new things, for (personal) security reasons. What's interesting is
that I don't see Joel blasting MS for when they used COM to wrap many API
functions, as well as new functionality in the OS which is provided only
through COM interfaces. I also find it interesting that there is no mention
of the expansion of the Windows API (for example, transactional NTFS),
preferring to act as if there is none.

He goes on to quote Paul Graham:

There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now,
because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to
write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their
APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write something
that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market research for
Microsoft.

Unfortunately, he is using a statement about the environment a decade
ago to justify his perception of migration patterns now. This doesn't work.
..NET wasn't around 10 years ago, and writing these kinds of apps on windows
platforms was difficult, which is why HTML was preferred. However, if you
are going to tell me that you would rather write an ASP.NET app (or web app)
over a smart client app (especially with ClickOnce on the horizon), I would
pretty much say you are out of your mind. God forbid if you had to display
information of a heiarchical nature in a web app.

Anyways, I could go on, but it would be more of the same. The article
is interesting, but I put it in the same camp as the people petitioning MS
to continue supporting VB6 (here's a hint, it's not the camp you want to be
in). This isn't to say I think VB6 is bad, but if I had a choice to develop
between that and .NET, the choice is easy for me (and yes I know the people
petitioning MS for VB6 (sorry, VB.COM, my mistake) are doing it for the
hobbyist programmer, I don't see VB.NET being that much of a different thing
than VB6 (at least to the extent that the hobbyist programmer uses it for)).

Flame away! =)


--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mvp@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m


"Dan Bass" <Not Listed> wrote in message
news:O6gxUpjgFH A.2424@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> In the end, APIs will always change, and it's not always possible to
>> make the new versions work with the old declarations. MS has always been
>> committed to backwards compatability, so I am not surprized by them
>> taking this approach as .NET 2.0 comes out.[/color]
>
> Would be nice if VS.Net 2005 compiled to .Net 1.1... After all, 2003
> compiles to unmanaged code, all be it the code needs adjusting to get it
> to compile.
>
> I find the new IDE great to use, but don't necessarily want to insist on
> the client having .Net 2.0.
>
> Do you have any comments on that article posted by Mark Jerde? I found it
> most interesting.
>[/color]

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: Changes in 2005.

Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <mvp@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote:[color=blue]
> I don't think that expecting VS.NET 2005 to compile for the .NET 1.1
> runtime is reasonable.[/color]

I think it's more than reasonable - I think it's shocking that you
can't do it. It means you can't take advantage of the improved IDE,
even if you want to stay compatible with the old language and
framework.

I think it's highly unlikely that the company I work for are going to
start shipping the 2.0 framework any time soon after its release -
which means we can't use VS 2005, despite the improvements it gives
outside the language/framework.

Tying IDE version to platform version is a really bad mistake, IMO.
[color=blue]
> Just like with VB3/4/5/6 etc etc, you couldn't compile an application for
> a previous runtime.[/color]

Whereas to take a different example, pretty much *every* Java IDE
allows you to compile against different JREs - a feature I've used
extensively in the past.

Just because MS has tied an IDE version to a platform version in the
past doesn't mean it's a good idea...

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[kids_pro]

Re: Changes in 2005.

I absolutely agree to what Jon said.
With the new feature of IDE I want to write and app. target 1.1.
However the 2.0 changed give me some hard time (I need to learn new classes)
:(

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d361e a81da88bf398c41 5@msnews.micros oft.com...[color=blue]
> Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] <mvp@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote:[color=green]
>> I don't think that expecting VS.NET 2005 to compile for the .NET 1.1
>> runtime is reasonable.[/color]
>
> I think it's more than reasonable - I think it's shocking that you
> can't do it. It means you can't take advantage of the improved IDE,
> even if you want to stay compatible with the old language and
> framework.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely that the company I work for are going to
> start shipping the 2.0 framework any time soon after its release -
> which means we can't use VS 2005, despite the improvements it gives
> outside the language/framework.
>
> Tying IDE version to platform version is a really bad mistake, IMO.
>[color=green]
>> Just like with VB3/4/5/6 etc etc, you couldn't compile an application for
>> a previous runtime.[/color]
>
> Whereas to take a different example, pretty much *every* Java IDE
> allows you to compile against different JREs - a feature I've used
> extensively in the past.
>
> Just because MS has tied an IDE version to a platform version in the
> past doesn't mean it's a good idea...
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too[/color]

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Re: Changes in 2005.

kids_pro <kids_pro@yahoo .com> wrote:[color=blue]
> I absolutely agree to what Jon said.
> With the new feature of IDE I want to write and app. target 1.1.
> However the 2.0 changed give me some hard time (I need to learn new classes)
> :([/color]

If it were just a case of learning new classes (which you don't *have*
to, just to use .NET 2.0) I wouldn't have a problem. It's a deployment
issue more than anything - not only do you have to redistribute the
framework to people who already have 1.1 (and potentially an earlier
version of your product - rather than patching a single DLL, you'd have
to give them a whole new set of DLLs and the new framework), but you
also have to worry about large organisations who take a long time to
"certify" the use of any framework within their organisations. They may
have done .NET 1.1 by now, but that doesn't mean they'll automatically
say that .NET 2.0 is okay...

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>

http://www.pobox.com/~skeet

If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Dan Bass]

Re: Changes in 2005.

just posted a reply to Nicholas, then read this and you've said the same
thing in a fraction of the space. I've gotta learn to do that!


"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@pobox.co m> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d36d7 63bedb5c8b98c41 c@msnews.micros oft.com...[color=blue]
> kids_pro <kids_pro@yahoo .com> wrote:[color=green]
>> I absolutely agree to what Jon said.
>> With the new feature of IDE I want to write and app. target 1.1.
>> However the 2.0 changed give me some hard time (I need to learn new
>> classes)
>> :([/color]
>
> If it were just a case of learning new classes (which you don't *have*
> to, just to use .NET 2.0) I wouldn't have a problem. It's a deployment
> issue more than anything - not only do you have to redistribute the
> framework to people who already have 1.1 (and potentially an earlier
> version of your product - rather than patching a single DLL, you'd have
> to give them a whole new set of DLLs and the new framework), but you
> also have to worry about large organisations who take a long time to
> "certify" the use of any framework within their organisations. They may
> have done .NET 1.1 by now, but that doesn't mean they'll automatically
> say that .NET 2.0 is okay...
>
> --
> Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.co m>
> http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
> If replying to the group, please do not mail me too[/color]

[Dan Bass]

Re: Changes in 2005.


The client base I currently have makes transitioning to new technologies
difficult, and I suspect my client is not unlike many other global large
scale companies hesitant to roll out the latest Windows AbFab server edition
and frameworks at the drop of a hat.

In a real world example, there's a standard build that's busy being rolled
out over the UK which is Windows 2000 with SP4. This has been going on for
the last 9 months, and there are still NT 4 systems out there. I'm new to my
firm and writing up .Net windows services, web services, asp.net web pages
etc is completely new for my client. .Net has been out for nearly four years
already and it's still "brand new" to many large scale companies who's
strict procedures don't allow the servers on which my software will run to
be updated as the patches/upgrades are released. Bringing out a new set of
great tools, such as VS.Net 2005, and saying to me that I can't really use
any of the little quirky tools seems a little odd, all because the people
I'm writing software for won't cotton on to this trend (and you can't really
blame them) of updates as they're released. I think Ford would be shooting
themselves in the foot bringing out a great car with a fabulous engine that
runs on some fuel type that's going to take a few years to actually get into
your local petrol (gas) station. If it was released as an option (with a
petrol 2.0 16v engine as standard!), however, with great promises of saving
the environment, costing less, then people would still buy it, but having a
normal petrol tank would more than double the sales because it's using an
existing fuel source.

I've not explored smart applications all that much,. but from a security
point of view, maintaining one application on one server is far more
attractive to us than having to try to roll out different version of
applications to the 50+ servers Europe wide. Then in terms of personal
desktops with in the company, the security's even tighter, trying to get an
application on these machines takes months, not to mention no one's ever
quite sure about the GPO's and access rights the user has on that particular
build of the OS. Web pages suddenly make so much sense because every Windows
machine comes with IE. I'd say around 75% of what we've done over the last 5
years has been web site development. Generating reports (yawn), moving goods
around the factory, updating terminal screens, scanning all sorts of "stuff"
for receipts, processing, transformations , printing of barcodes etc., all
goes through IIS. There's one box to worry about per site, and we normally
have some sort of access to it.

Anyway the point to my droning is I read the article and thought that
someone had penned down something we'd been focussing on and practicing for
the last 5 years. Windows development is where I've come from, where I've
earned my bread and butter as it were, and what I have experience
implementing with, but moving from home desktop user to corporate network
applications made me realise not everyone can throw an upgrade CD in a
drive, or download that update, when you realise there's something that
needs to (would be nice to) change. The way in which ASP.Net is now exposing
the .Net GDI for example, and reshaping the way in which the backend works,
I'm finding the windows and web development gap closing really fast.


"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in
message news:uTR%23NIkg FHA.2472@TK2MSF TNGP15.phx.gbl. ..[color=blue]
> Dan,
>
> I don't think that expecting VS.NET 2005 to compile for the .NET 1.1
> runtime is reasonable. Just like with VB3/4/5/6 etc etc, you couldn't
> compile an application for a previous runtime. The only environment that
> I know of that allowed this is C++ (but I'm not completely sure about
> this), since there was no runtime to speak of.
>
> VS.NET 2003 does not compile to unmanaged code. For all managed code,
> the JIT compiler handles the compilation to unmanaged code from IL. The
> only unmanaged code that VS.NET can create is unmanaged C++, which VS.NET
> 2005 supports as well.
>
> I see it the same way I see it as the upgrade from VB5 to VB6 (I'm a
> bit young, so I wasn't around for many other major shifts like this). The
> way I see it, yes, the client has to upgrade from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0,
> but with Windows Update cramming the new runtimes down your throat (and WU
> will push 2.0 when it is released), as well as the fact that different
> .NET runtimes can run side-by-side, I'd MUCH rather take .NET over
> previous runtimes.
>
> I took the time to read the article posted by Mark Jerde. While I do
> think that Joel is on crack (at least when he wrote the article), to his
> credit, the article is over a year old. There are too many instances in
> the article where he lists a specific problem which can be specifically
> addressed with .NET solutions (or other solutions not .NET related even,
> just .NET makes them very easy). An example of this is his statement
> about web applications not providing the rich UI experience. Smart
> clients are a way to do this. It's not easy (but it's not overly hard
> either), it's just new, and people are too afraid to come out from under
> the protective blanket they THINK they have. While this isn't the cause
> for eveyone to resist new ways of doing things (I do think ROI is a valid
> reason to not move to new technologies whenever they appear), it certainly
> is a big one, IMO.
>
> There are also a few areas in the article where he is outright wrong.
> One of the biggest errors is where he states that WinFX is a replacement
> for the Win32 API. This simply is not true. It simply provides new
> functionality. SendMessage and CreateFile are not going anywhere (the
> framework wouldn't work if that was the case). This goes back to people
> not liking new things, for (personal) security reasons. What's
> interesting is that I don't see Joel blasting MS for when they used COM to
> wrap many API functions, as well as new functionality in the OS which is
> provided only through COM interfaces. I also find it interesting that
> there is no mention of the expansion of the Windows API (for example,
> transactional NTFS), preferring to act as if there is none.
>
> He goes on to quote Paul Graham:
>
> There is all the more reason for startups to write Web-based software now,
> because writing desktop software has become a lot less fun. If you want to
> write desktop software now you do it on Microsoft's terms, calling their
> APIs and working around their buggy OS. And if you manage to write
> something that takes off, you may find that you were merely doing market
> research for Microsoft.
>
> Unfortunately, he is using a statement about the environment a decade
> ago to justify his perception of migration patterns now. This doesn't
> work. .NET wasn't around 10 years ago, and writing these kinds of apps on
> windows platforms was difficult, which is why HTML was preferred.
> However, if you are going to tell me that you would rather write an
> ASP.NET app (or web app) over a smart client app (especially with
> ClickOnce on the horizon), I would pretty much say you are out of your
> mind. God forbid if you had to display information of a heiarchical
> nature in a web app.
>
> Anyways, I could go on, but it would be more of the same. The article
> is interesting, but I put it in the same camp as the people petitioning MS
> to continue supporting VB6 (here's a hint, it's not the camp you want to
> be in). This isn't to say I think VB6 is bad, but if I had a choice to
> develop between that and .NET, the choice is easy for me (and yes I know
> the people petitioning MS for VB6 (sorry, VB.COM, my mistake) are doing it
> for the hobbyist programmer, I don't see VB.NET being that much of a
> different thing than VB6 (at least to the extent that the hobbyist
> programmer uses it for)).
>
> Flame away! =)
>
>
> --
> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
> - mvp@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
>
>
> "Dan Bass" <Not Listed> wrote in message
> news:O6gxUpjgFH A.2424@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>[color=darkred]
>>> In the end, APIs will always change, and it's not always possible to
>>> make the new versions work with the old declarations. MS has always
>>> been committed to backwards compatability, so I am not surprized by them
>>> taking this approach as .NET 2.0 comes out.[/color]
>>
>> Would be nice if VS.Net 2005 compiled to .Net 1.1... After all, 2003
>> compiles to unmanaged code, all be it the code needs adjusting to get it
>> to compile.
>>
>> I find the new IDE great to use, but don't necessarily want to insist on
>> the client having .Net 2.0.
>>
>> Do you have any comments on that article posted by Mark Jerde? I found it
>> most interesting.
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

[Mark Broadbent]

Re: Changes in 2005.

My 2 cents. Firstly thanks for all your input into this thread -it's been
interesting.

On the subject of VB6 to .net, this was the first step that MS took imo
(with regards to IDE / Compiler) to forcefully lead us to change. Whilst I
love .net (in particular C#) I do feel this is a worrying trend with MS.
There is no reason at all why the nextgen IDE should not be able to support
a previous codebase without changes to it (runtime or not). Whilst the
instructional feedback in VS2005 is very good as far as showing what changes
you should make, this should not be necessary.

If I wanted to use the new IDE functionality, but target for 1.1 then I
should be able to. If there are certain IDE functions that would not (or
should not) be compatible with this framework then they could be disabled in
the IDE -so the IDE operates independantly of the framework. Likewise, if a
different and newer runtime is selected in the IDE, then the IDE (or
compiler) could simply display those problematic parts of code (and not
compile). I think I have banged on about these points in the past. Likewise
this approach could be taken with respect to writing native code in VB using
the new IDE.

I think my original point about the addition of new classes to replace old
classes concerned me more on the basis of their necessity (if it aint
broke..). The only justification I can think of is if they provided much
needed functionality or a big improvement in performance gain.
It is still early days for me to come to any conclusion as whether this
might be so, however I would not be very happy having to relearn a different
DataAdpter or another set of classes offerring the same type of function
every time a new IDE/ framework is released.

br,

Mark.


"Mark Broadbent" <nospam@nospam. com> wrote in message
news:OB0U5rigFH A.3912@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive or
> informative replies.
>
> Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to Framework
> classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to replace old
> ones (that only appear to offer a different location in the
> framework) -ConfigurationMa nager seems to be one.
> And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had Closing
> ..now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is in the
> designer (new one) and one isn't.
> What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names fer
> gawd sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly than it
> should be.
>
> Br,
>
> Mark.
>[/color]

[Dan Bass]

Re: Changes in 2005.


I'm not sure I agree with your point on the change in class names, naming
conventions for events etc,. from the stand point that improvements
(although we sometimes why they're called that) will always be made to the
current vocabulary because, as all languages do, C# is evolving. Sometimes
adaptations, from one version to the next, show up that something previously
used is no longer appropriate because the context has changed.

If this principle wasn't so and with each release everything remained
stringently the same, then, firstly, the evolution process would cramp up in
the boundries of existing terminology, and secondly, each time something was
extended it wouldn't be an increase in the version number on an existing
syntax, but a requirement to define a new language and specification from
scratch. This just isn't practical. C# would need to become C#minor and then
C#minor7th rather than C# on .Net 1.0/1.1, C# 2 on .Net 2.0 etc.

But this point draws us back to the fact that an IDE for C# v2 should
support C# v1. Why? Well because we don't want to port what works into a new
version of the framework simply because we prefer the new development
environment.


"Mark Broadbent" <nospam@nospam. com> wrote in message
news:uFYLVcugFH A.3540@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> My 2 cents. Firstly thanks for all your input into this thread -it's been
> interesting.
>
> On the subject of VB6 to .net, this was the first step that MS took imo
> (with regards to IDE / Compiler) to forcefully lead us to change. Whilst I
> love .net (in particular C#) I do feel this is a worrying trend with MS.
> There is no reason at all why the nextgen IDE should not be able to
> support a previous codebase without changes to it (runtime or not). Whilst
> the instructional feedback in VS2005 is very good as far as showing what
> changes you should make, this should not be necessary.
>
> If I wanted to use the new IDE functionality, but target for 1.1 then I
> should be able to. If there are certain IDE functions that would not (or
> should not) be compatible with this framework then they could be disabled
> in the IDE -so the IDE operates independantly of the framework. Likewise,
> if a different and newer runtime is selected in the IDE, then the IDE (or
> compiler) could simply display those problematic parts of code (and not
> compile). I think I have banged on about these points in the past.
> Likewise this approach could be taken with respect to writing native code
> in VB using the new IDE.
>
> I think my original point about the addition of new classes to replace old
> classes concerned me more on the basis of their necessity (if it aint
> broke..). The only justification I can think of is if they provided much
> needed functionality or a big improvement in performance gain.
> It is still early days for me to come to any conclusion as whether this
> might be so, however I would not be very happy having to relearn a
> different DataAdpter or another set of classes offerring the same type of
> function every time a new IDE/ framework is released.
>
> br,
>
> Mark.
>
>
> "Mark Broadbent" <nospam@nospam. com> wrote in message
> news:OB0U5rigFH A.3912@tk2msftn gp13.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> This post is not intended in inflame, so please provide only positive or
>> informative replies.
>>
>> Personally I'm getting a little fed up over certain changes to Framework
>> classes and such -whereby new classes have been created to replace old
>> ones (that only appear to offer a different location in the
>> framework) -ConfigurationMa nager seems to be one.
>> And other things such as the renaming of events e.g a form 1.1 had
>> Closing ..now it's FormClosing! Yes they both still work, but one is in
>> the designer (new one) and one isn't.
>> What is the point of changing things like these (keep the old names fer
>> gawd sake!) Changing code from 1.1 to 2.0 seems to be more fiddly than it
>> should be.
>>
>> Br,
>>
>> Mark.
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]