C#, .NET, and Unit Testing
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Mike Schilling on 13 May 2010 23:13 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > If it is a combined build and one does not need more > functionality than what it has, then I am sure it > is handy. Yes. Our build amounted to: 1. Compile the Java classes (and build jars, etc.) 2. Convert the Java to C# 3. Compile the C# into DLLs and EXEs Being able to do all 3 in ANT (the second was acomplished by running a Java program, which ANT is also quite good at) was, indeed, handly.
From: Peter Duniho on 14 May 2010 00:24 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > [...] >> That's mostly true. However, note that the .NET 3.0 and 3.5 SDKs were >> usable with VS2005. > > Officially supported? The 3.0 one was for sure. And since VS2008 came with 3.5, there wasn't really any reason for the standalone SDK except to support VS2005 users. IIRC, none of the C# 3.0 features worked in VS2005; the SDK was strictly to enable referencing the 3.5 .NET libraries. >> There is, at least for now, no .NET 4.0 SDK as far as I can tell. So for >> .NET 4.0 features, VS2010 is required. It's theoretically possible they >> will release a .NET 4.0 SDK though that can be used to enable .NET 4 >> development in VS2008 (or maybe even VS2005!). > > What is needed in the SDK? The compiler comes with the framework! Each new version of the Framework has plenty of features that don't require the latest compiler. Pete
From: Mike Schilling on 14 May 2010 00:40 Peter Duniho wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> [...] >>> That's mostly true. However, note that the .NET 3.0 and 3.5 SDKs >>> were usable with VS2005. >> >> Officially supported? > > The 3.0 one was for sure. 3.0 was an odd release, in that it consisted of some new libraries that got added on to the 2.0 libraries and compiler. 3.5, on the other hand, was a complete replacement of everything that went before. In a logical world (i.e. one not run by the marketing department), 3.0 would have been called 2.5 and 3.5 called 3.0 .
From: Peter Duniho on 14 May 2010 00:43 Mike Schilling wrote: > 3.0 was an odd release, in that it consisted of some new libraries that got > added on to the 2.0 libraries and compiler. 3.5, on the other hand, was a > complete replacement of everything that went before. In a logical world > (i.e. one not run by the marketing department), 3.0 would have been called > 2.5 and 3.5 called 3.0 . I don't disagree with any of that. But the fact remains that SDKs were provided which enabled users of the older IDE to target the newer Frameworks. I don't even dispute that, on the whole, the release schedules for .NET and the developer tools are synchronized. I'm just pointing out that it's not true for all IDE versions that you _have_ to upgrade in order to use newer .NET versions than what were available with the IDE at its release (specifically, Microsoft supported VS2005 beyond .NET 2.0). Pete
From: Mike Schilling on 14 May 2010 00:46
Peter Duniho wrote: > Mike Schilling wrote: >> 3.0 was an odd release, in that it consisted of some new libraries >> that got added on to the 2.0 libraries and compiler. 3.5, on the >> other hand, was a complete replacement of everything that went >> before. In a logical world (i.e. one not run by the marketing >> department), 3.0 would have been called 2.5 and 3.5 called 3.0 . > > I don't disagree with any of that. But the fact remains that SDKs > were provided which enabled users of the older IDE to target the newer > Frameworks. Provided, as you mentioned, that they didn't need the new language features. (Of which, in 3.0, there weren't any.) |