From: Peter Duniho on 4 May 2010 03:21 CSharpner wrote: > On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com> > wrote: >> CSharpner wrote: >>> When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5 >>> weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be >>> there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0. >>> >>> What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or >>> does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)? >> >> The former. > > Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in > both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former". > Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement? I only saw two sentences that were actual questions, which were the ones to which I responded and referred. Sorry it wasn't more clear.
From: CSharpner on 4 May 2010 14:14 On May 4, 3:21 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com> wrote: > CSharpner wrote: > > On May 3, 11:29 am, Peter Duniho <no.peted.s...(a)no.nwlink.spam.com> > > wrote: > >> CSharpner wrote: > >>> When .NET upgraded from 2.0 to 3.0 (and again to 3.5), 3.0 and 3.5 > >>> weren't really totally new versions of .NET. They required 2.0 to be > >>> there and were more of an extension or and add-on to 2.0. > > >>> What about .NET 4.0? Is it a complete framework all on its own? Or > >>> does it require 2.0 (and/or 3.x)? > > >> The former. > > > Thanks for responding, but I have the options in different orders in > > both paragraphs, so I'm not sure which you're calling "the former". > > Is 4.0 an add-on or a replacement? > > I only saw two sentences that were actual questions, which were the ones > to which I responded and referred. Sorry it wasn't more clear. Very true. Only two were questions. Unfortunately, a lot of people (not you, of course) aren't as direct and logical as you are. I couldn't tell which kind of replyer you were. :)
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Reading emails from distribution group and extract attachment Next: If .NET 4.0 is new..... |