What are the advantages of .NET 2.0 over NET 1.1 ?

[yaron]

Hi,

1. I am familiar with .NET 1.1 and not with .NET 2.0 .
if i should start a new networking project should i write it with .net 2.0
beta or
write it with .net 1.1 ?

2. What are the advantages of .NET 2.0 over NET 1.1 that i should consider
when writing a new infrastrcuture networking project ?

Thanks.

[Moty Michaely]

Hey Yaron,

There are many many advanteges. First, the VS.NET 2005 has better interface,
..NET framework 2.0 has many new features that enhances the framework 1.1
functionallity. Enhances Security, XML support and much more.
Enhancements in WinForms. And many little things that were missing in .NET
1.1.

Check Microsoft/MSDN for specific information.

"yaron" <ya***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:29******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Hi,

1. I am familiar with .NET 1.1 and not with .NET 2.0 .
if i should start a new networking project should i write it with .net 2.0
beta or
write it with .net 1.1 ?

2. What are the advantages of .NET 2.0 over NET 1.1 that i should consider
when writing a new infrastrcuture networking project ?

Thanks.

[Mark Broadbent]

Not entirely sure I agree with you here. I mean is Word 2003 that much
better than Word XP? When do we decide that the pudding is over-egged?
It's a little unfair of me though because I've not spent too much time with
2005 beta 2 YET and a lot with 2003.

A couple of additions to your points.

Team System
Generics (new c# language feature).
Br,

Mark.
"Moty Michaely" <mo**@speedocs. co.il> wrote in message
news:ub******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

Hey Yaron,

There are many many advanteges. First, the VS.NET 2005 has better
interface,
.NET framework 2.0 has many new features that enhances the framework 1.1
functionallity. Enhances Security, XML support and much more.
Enhancements in WinForms. And many little things that were missing in .NET
1.1.

Check Microsoft/MSDN for specific information.

"yaron" <ya***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:29******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Hi,

1. I am familiar with .NET 1.1 and not with .NET 2.0 .
if i should start a new networking project should i write it with .net
2.0
beta or
write it with .net 1.1 ?

2. What are the advantages of .NET 2.0 over NET 1.1 that i should
consider
when writing a new infrastrcuture networking project ?

Thanks.

[Moty Michaely]

Hey Mark,

I havn't considered talking about Team System.

There are many things "Java" like in .NET 2005.

Some things like generic and partial classes that can be very helpful in
Large teams.

..NET 2005 is better, there is no doubt. You can't compare office 2003 and
XP, because office 2003 is not that much better than XP in it's features
than what .NET 2005 is about to be more than 2003.

"Mark Broadbent" <no****@nospam. com> wrote in message
news:eh******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP09.phx.gbl...

Not entirely sure I agree with you here. I mean is Word 2003 that much
better than Word XP? When do we decide that the pudding is over-egged?
It's a little unfair of me though because I've not spent too much time
with
2005 beta 2 YET and a lot with 2003.

A couple of additions to your points.

Team System
Generics (new c# language feature).
Br,

Mark.
"Moty Michaely" <mo**@speedocs. co.il> wrote in message
news:ub******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP10.phx.gbl...

Hey Yaron,

There are many many advanteges. First, the VS.NET 2005 has better
interface,
.NET framework 2.0 has many new features that enhances the framework 1.1
functionallity. Enhances Security, XML support and much more.
Enhancements in WinForms. And many little things that were missing in
.NET
1.1.

Check Microsoft/MSDN for specific information.

"yaron" <ya***@discussi ons.microsoft.c om> wrote in message
news:29******** *************** ***********@mic rosoft.com...

Hi,

1. I am familiar with .NET 1.1 and not with .NET 2.0 .
if i should start a new networking project should i write it with .net
2.0
beta or
write it with .net 1.1 ?

2. What are the advantages of .NET 2.0 over NET 1.1 that i should
consider
when writing a new infrastrcuture networking project ?

Thanks.

[Bruce Wood]

I haven't worked with VS 2005, but I've seen lots of demos. It's much,
much better than VS 2003. However, I'd hardly consider that as a good
reason to switch. Generics, partial classes, improved data access,
nullable types, ... all of these are far better reasons to switch. My
company will be adopting VS 2005 as soon as we've decided that it's
stable and reliable.

I'm so sure about this because I regularly run across situations in
..NET 1.1 in which I have to do ugly things that would be downright
elegant in .NET 2.0. Mostly this has to do with generics and partial
classes, but the other features would really help me, as well. I can't
wait to adopt .NET 2.0 and rewrite some of the ungainly code I have
underlying my system. :-)

[Mark Broadbent]

Hi Moty/ Bruce. Like I said, at present I'm unable to really comment but I
like the fact you two are very positive. For me VS2003 dn 1.1 is a very
strong product. I really hope I'm as happy about the advance in 2005. I've
had the beta2 for a while now but still keep going back to 2003. But will
have to make the full switch soon.

One of my biggest problems about the whole MS .net drive though is really
the way that their IDE's are tied to a particular framework. i.e. VS2002
1.0, VS2003 1.1 and VS2005 2.0. It would be really nice to have seperation
here.
Then it would only be the productivity side that you are loosing out on by
continuing using an old IDE not language additions.
And before anyone says it ....Yes I know I can use the new CSC to compile
2.0 code!

"Bruce Wood" <br*******@cana da.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

I haven't worked with VS 2005, but I've seen lots of demos. It's much,
much better than VS 2003. However, I'd hardly consider that as a good
reason to switch. Generics, partial classes, improved data access,
nullable types, ... all of these are far better reasons to switch. My
company will be adopting VS 2005 as soon as we've decided that it's
stable and reliable.

I'm so sure about this because I regularly run across situations in
.NET 1.1 in which I have to do ugly things that would be downright
elegant in .NET 2.0. Mostly this has to do with generics and partial
classes, but the other features would really help me, as well. I can't
wait to adopt .NET 2.0 and rewrite some of the ungainly code I have
underlying my system. :-)

[wozza]

"Bruce Wood" <br*******@cana da.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

I haven't worked with VS 2005, but I've seen lots of demos. It's much,
much better than VS 2003. However, I'd hardly consider that as a good
reason to switch. Generics, partial classes, improved data access,
nullable types, ... all of these are far better reasons to switch. My
company will be adopting VS 2005 as soon as we've decided that it's
stable and reliable.

I'm so sure about this because I regularly run across situations in
.NET 1.1 in which I have to do ugly things that would be downright
elegant in .NET 2.0. Mostly this has to do with generics and partial
classes, but the other features would really help me, as well. I can't
wait to adopt .NET 2.0 and rewrite some of the ungainly code I have
underlying my system. :-)

What's so good about partial classes? Looks like trouble to me.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

wozza <wozza96@_NO_SP AM_yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm so sure about this because I regularly run across situations in
.NET 1.1 in which I have to do ugly things that would be downright
elegant in .NET 2.0. Mostly this has to do with generics and partial
classes, but the other features would really help me, as well. I can't
wait to adopt .NET 2.0 and rewrite some of the ungainly code I have
underlying my system. :-)

What's so good about partial classes? Looks like trouble to me.

It allows you to separate machine-generated parts of some classes from
the customised parts. I don't think it'll be terribly useful very
often, but when it's useful, I think it'll be *very* useful.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Moty Michaely]

You can work simultaneously on the same class!!! it's very powerfull when a
team is working on the same class.

- Moty -
"wozza" <wozza96@_NO_SP AM_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42******** *************** @news.optusnet. com.au...

"Bruce Wood" <br*******@cana da.com> wrote in message
news:11******** **************@ o13g2000cwo.goo glegroups.com.. .

I haven't worked with VS 2005, but I've seen lots of demos. It's much,
much better than VS 2003. However, I'd hardly consider that as a good
reason to switch. Generics, partial classes, improved data access,
nullable types, ... all of these are far better reasons to switch. My
company will be adopting VS 2005 as soon as we've decided that it's
stable and reliable.

I'm so sure about this because I regularly run across situations in
.NET 1.1 in which I have to do ugly things that would be downright
elegant in .NET 2.0. Mostly this has to do with generics and partial
classes, but the other features would really help me, as well. I can't
wait to adopt .NET 2.0 and rewrite some of the ungainly code I have
underlying my system. :-)

What's so good about partial classes? Looks like trouble to me.

[Bruce Wood]

That's an interesting application of the technology. I'd never
considered that. I'd always thought about them the way that Jon
mentioned: the ability to separate machine-generated and hand-generated
parts of the same class. I'm most interested in it for use with
strongly-typed datasets: being able to build them into business objects
by adding your own hand-tooled code without worrying about it being
clobbered if the strongly-typed dataset is regenerated because of a
schema change. It just seemed a nice idea to keep things straight.

Nullable types will be a big plus: the ability to (finally) handle
what's really in the database rather than having to fudge things like
DateTime by using DataTime.MinVal ue to represent null and such
nonsense.

Generics will be the heavy hitter. I've lost count of the classes I've
written that would be simpler with generics, plus I'd get compile-time
type checking to boot. (I've also lost count of the hours spent
debugging problems that I could have found at compile time if I had
generics to use.)