C#, .NET, and Unit Testing
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Arved Sandstrom on 14 May 2010 20:23 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > 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 Ah, sorry, typo. I meant www.nunit.com...as well as www.nunit.org. AHS
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 May 2010 21:04 On 14-05-2010 20:23, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> 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. >> >> ???? > > Ah, sorry, typo. I meant www.nunit.com as well as www.nunit.org. Ah. Those point indeed to the same site. Arne
From: Mike Schilling on 14 May 2010 21:38 Arne Vajh�j wrote: > 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. But creates a new directory tree and populates it with a new C# compiler, IIRC.
From: Arne Vajhøj on 14 May 2010 21:45 On 14-05-2010 21:38, Mike Schilling wrote: > Arne Vajh�j wrote: >> 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. > > But creates a new directory tree and populates it with a new C# compiler, > IIRC. New libraries and new compilers, but still the same CLR. Framework libs C# CLR 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Arne
From: Peter Duniho on 16 May 2010 21:06
Arne Vajh�j wrote: > New libraries and new compilers, but still the same CLR. > > Framework libs C# CLR > 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 > 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 > 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.0 > 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Exactly. Of course, to further confuse the issue, even within the CLR version, there have been minor updates in the service packs. The CLR 2.0 that came with .NET 2.0 isn't precisely the same as the CLR 2.0 that you get with .NET 3.5. |