C#, .NET, and Unit Testing
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Peter Duniho on 14 May 2010 01:13 Mike Schilling wrote: > [...] >> 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.) I don't recall even any features in .NET 3.5 that _required_ the new language features. Certain features were somewhat harder to use without the language support, but they were still accessible to the determined programmer (and some, like LINQ, are very usable even without the new language features in C# 3.0). In C# 4.0, features like interface type variance and dynamic types are likely to be much harder to use in earlier versions of the language, probably to the point of there being no practical way to use them without the latest language version. But other things, like Parallel Extensions and the Managed Extensibility Framework, don't rely on language features at all. That said, for .NET 4.0, I think it's a moot question. I haven't seen any evidence that Microsoft is going to be releasing a standalone SDK for .NET 4.0. Pete
From: Arved Sandstrom on 14 May 2010 05:30 Mike Schilling wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> On 13-05-2010 02:42, Mike Schilling wrote: >>> Is there only one NUnit now? At the time I needed one (back in >>> 2002 or so), there were about four at SourceForge. I picked the one >>> that looked like it had had the most work done on it, and it was >>> fine. >> I have never seen other than http://www.nunit.org/ ! > > > Hmm. I wonder whether that's the same one. I'll have to take a look > sometime. www.nunit.org, www.unit.com, all the same thing. It's the one I meant. AHS
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 May 2010 18:44 On 14-05-2010 00:40, Mike Schilling wrote: > 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. 3.5 still uses 2.0 CLR. > 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 . More like 2.1 and 2.5 in my opinion. That would lave bump of major version to new CLR's. Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 May 2010 18:45 On 13-05-2010 23:13, Mike Schilling wrote: > 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. How do you do the conversion? Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 May 2010 18:59
On 14-05-2010 05:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Mike Schilling wrote: >> Arne Vajh�j wrote: >>> On 13-05-2010 02:42, Mike Schilling wrote: >>>> Is there only one NUnit now? At the time I needed one (back in >>>> 2002 or so), there were about four at SourceForge. I picked the one >>>> that looked like it had had the most work done on it, and it was >>>> fine. >>> I have never seen other than http://www.nunit.org/ ! >> >> >> Hmm. I wonder whether that's the same one. I'll have to take a look >> sometime. > > www.nunit.org, www.unit.com, all the same thing. It's the one I meant. www.nunit.org is a unit testing framework. www.unit.com seems to be placeholder page from a domain name seller. ???? Arne |