3 ms·
In 2005 the hot new Windows technology was .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0. You can't just dump Framework 1.1's libraries next to the binary and expect it to work eit
by mappu 2y ago
In 2005 the hot new Windows technology was .NET Framework 1.1 or 2.0. You can't just dump Framework 1.1's libraries next to the binary and expect it to work either, it needs to be installed properly.
- int_19h 2y agoYep, but you can still install .NET 3.5 on Windows today, which will run .NET 2.0 apps just fine. .NET 1.x tho, yeah.
- cyberax 2y agoThe most recent .NET Framework still keeps 1.1 assemblies for compatibility. And yep, .NET sucked and eventually got semi-abandoned.
- DonnyV 2y agoWhat are you talking about??? .NET never got abandoned! If anything its hit a very high bar now. Its one of the top frameworks to build an app across platforms.
- p_ing 2y agoThey're referring to (I hope), the .NET Framework which is Windows-only and the last/latest version being 4.8. It should live a very long life, as Microsoft server infrastructure is built on it (SharePoint/Exchange).
- cyberax 2y ago.NET Framework is indeed getting sidelined, along with WPF and the other technologies from the .NET 1.1 era.
- recursive 2y agoThis must be from an alternate timeline. There is no way to call what is currently going on with .net anything other than 0% abandoned.
- Uvix 2y agoThe .NET Framework 1.x runtime is no longer supported, and the .NET Framework 2.0 runtime (used by v2.0-3.5 applications) won’t be supported after 2029. They are slowly abandoning support for old apps. (Yes, if you fiddle with the config file they might work on the .NET 4.0 runtime. But that’s not something a typical user can/will do.)
- recursive 2y ago.net is on version 9 now.
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoIt keeps classes for backward compatibility, not assemblies. Some code still didn't migrate from them to not cause gratuitous churn. Also it's web scale, because untyped collections can hold values of different types just like javascript.