version
 

what is the present version of vs.net

Re: version
 

>what is the present version of vs.net

48

Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

Re: version
 

sender wrote:

> what is the present version of vs.net

2003, or 1.1

Re: version
 

"Eric" <Eric> wrote:

>sender wrote:
>
>> what is the present version of vs.net
>
>2003, or 1.1

I think you mean Visual Studio .NET 2003;
aka Visual Studio .NET 7.1 (which includes the .NET
Framework/SDK 1.1)

as opposed to

Visual Studio .NET 2002;
aka Visual Studio .NET 7 (which includes the .NET
Framework/SDK 1.0)

or

Visual Studio .NET 2005;
aka Visual Studio .NET 7.2(? or 8) (which includes the .NET
Framework/SDK 2.0)

You have just demonstrated why they switched to
release labels representing an AD year. Basically the same
tactic as creating version control labels - nobody is going
to remember all the separate component version numbers; they
only become relevant if you want to determine if anything
for a particular component has changed for a release. (Also
the lack of major/minor version gives no hint about the
"significance" (or lack of) of the release.)

Re: version
 

Nah, It's 48 trust me.

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:53:00 -0400, UAError <null@null.null> wrote:

>"Eric" <Eric> wrote:
>
>>sender wrote:
>>
>>> what is the present version of vs.net
>>
>>2003, or 1.1
>
>I think you mean Visual Studio .NET 2003;
>aka Visual Studio .NET 7.1 (which includes the .NET
>Framework/SDK 1.1)
>
>as opposed to
>
>Visual Studio .NET 2002;
>aka Visual Studio .NET 7 (which includes the .NET
>Framework/SDK 1.0)
>
>or
>
>Visual Studio .NET 2005;
>aka Visual Studio .NET 7.2(? or 8) (which includes the .NET
>Framework/SDK 2.0)
>
> You have just demonstrated why they switched to
>release labels representing an AD year. Basically the same
>tactic as creating version control labels - nobody is going
>to remember all the separate component version numbers; they
>only become relevant if you want to determine if anything
>for a particular component has changed for a release. (Also
>the lack of major/minor version gives no hint about the
>"significance" (or lack of) of the release.)


Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

Re: version
 

The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere <.> wrote:

>Nah, It's 48 trust me.
>
Why?
Because 48 is halfway between 42 and six times nine?

Re: version
 

>Why?
>Because 48 is halfway between 42 and six times nine?

No, because 48 is 50 - 2.... dear, oh dear......

Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

Re: version
 

The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere wrote:

> > Why?
> > Because 48 is halfway between 42 and six times nine?
>
> No, because 48 is 50 - 2.... dear, oh dear......
>
> Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3

This just goes to show that high school counselors are right: you do
have to be good in math to be a programmer!

Eric