.NET Framework Version Comparision

http://jinaldesai.net/net-framework-version-comparision-table/

by peaceison • 14 years ago

56 49 14 years ago

It is frequent usage to see all the .NET Version with it’s features on one page. While surfing on net it is difficult to find or even not a single site provides all version on one plate with features. Following is a try to put all the .NET Framework versions together with other release and features details.

fosk• 14 years ago

C# as a language had numerous and interesting features implemented in the last years. I always wished that Java was that fast in making improvements, instead of spending years for every decision.

Gjallarson• 14 years ago

Moreover due to the fact that .NET is coupled with Windows, it seems to be less of a problem to be stuck with a very outdated version of the framework. In Java I often had to write for version 4, whereas 6 was already released.

gouranga5• 14 years ago

Agreed, apart from nullable types which I think is a misfeature (having dealt with the inevitable null reference/null value tristate hell left by some developers).

TazeTSchnitzel3• 14 years ago

I thought .NET types were optionally nullable? I don't think they are by default.

tomjen32• 14 years ago

I just wish that rather than adding nullable primitives they added non-nullable objects. The type system used by googles javascript compiler has support for those and working with it is fantastic.

bunderbunder3• 14 years ago

.NET won't allow you to create a Nullable<T> where T is itself a nullable type. (And Nullable<T> is not itself nullable.) I'm not sure about all languages, but in C# code like that won't even compile.

I agree, allowing a nullable wrapper around a (already inherently nullable) reference type would be a horrible misfeature. What language was that?

soc882• 14 years ago

Scala might be an option for you. It is not as "stable" as Java, but more like C# and it actually has a real "deprecation cycle", e. g. stuff gets removed after two versions, both in the language and the library. Pace of development is actually really impressive. If you are interested, I wrote down some nodes about the keynote at ScalaDays here: http://hackerne.ws/item?id=3912885

bunderbunder3• 14 years ago

I think that the "deprecation cycle" is ultimately hurtful for Scala. Breaking changes in a programming language are immensely difficult and expensive for enterprises to deal with, and breaking changes in core libraries are no picnic either. I'd be extremely hesitant to advise my employer to adopt a language whose maintainers have a cavalier attitude about such things, because it does really bad things to our ability to predict costs.

Djehngo• 14 years ago

For what it's worth 4.0 also added co-variant and contra-variant generics which are surprisingly useful.

gouranga5• 14 years ago

I've written about 400kloc in C# 4.0 and I haven't had a need yet :(

Yrlec• 14 years ago

How is that ironic?

profquail• 14 years ago

Co- and contra-variant generics have been available since .NET 2.0 -- they just weren't exposed by any "standard" .NET language until C# 4 (which coincided with .NET 4.0).

boyter• 14 years ago

The thing I like most about C# is the new 4.5 async method decorators CTP which are frankly async methods done right.

For those not in the know, you just need to add an async to the front of the method and then put in await on whatever operation is going to take a while.

You can literally take synchronous network code modify a few methods and get 100x the throughput.

masklinn2• 14 years ago

> You can literally take synchronous network code modify a few methods

A few methods? Visible async taints, always (think haskell monads, because that's pretty much what it is), you have to convert the complete dynamic scope leading to those newly async method or it'll never work correctly.

It's more than "a few methods" unless your system is absolutely trivial.

So no, you literally can't do that, let alone literally.

Not to mention, `async` marks the method as asynchronous, it does not make the method asynchronous:

> put in await on whatever operation is going to take a while.

That operation also needs to be async itself, and ultimately it needs to be implemented as running on a separate execution queue. At the very least, this means wrapping "whatever operation" in a `TaskFactory.StartNew`. Not just adding an `await` to synchronous code.

Ultimately, `async` and `await` still are nothing but sugar over the Tasks API.

vyrotek• 14 years ago

I appreciate your perspective on this. I've been using the new Tasks from the Parallel Library and really enjoy them. But, once I started reading about the async markup I was a little unsure as to what I gained from it since as you mentioned it's really just a new way to write the task.

Personally, I haven't had the time to really sit down and play around with both to see how I feel about code legibility and maintainability between the two techniques.

Are you aware of any extra functionality gained by marking methods async? It seems the new markup is more useful for frameworks. Think async action methods on controllers for mvc rather than your own little methods.

topbanana2• 14 years ago

Async/await is mostly a C#5 rather than .Net 4.5 thing. They could allow it to work against .Net 4 and even 3.5.

jstclair• 14 years ago

Not just could, but did: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/csharpfaq/archive/2012/04/26/async-t...

apaprocki• 14 years ago

Async/await modeled after C# have been hacked into node.js as well:

https://github.com/koush/node/wiki/%22async%22-support-in-no...

untog• 14 years ago

Interesting- it looks a lot like tame.js, but integrated into V8 itself. I wonder what the performance benefits are.

jinushaun3• 14 years ago

Missing .NET 4.5, which introduces C# 5 with async support. C# is a great language. Shame it's stuck on Windows and the "enterprisey" .NET framework.

hamidpalo4• 14 years ago

What is "enterprisey" about .NET?

Mono is a real alternative, many businesses run it production, including the likes of Fog Creek.

TazeTSchnitzel3• 14 years ago

.NET is very "enterprisey". It seems to be designed to make creating line-of-business applications easier.

gecko• 14 years ago

Just so we're all on the same page here, Fog Creek is not currently using Mono in any part of Kiln or FogBugz On Demand. We use Mono to allow FogBugz to run on Unix systems for on-site installation, and we're looking at using Mono in Kiln for similar reasons. At the moment, though, Kiln and FogBugz On Demand are 100% WISC deployments.

yatendra• 14 years ago

I am not sure what is enterprisey about .Net. I am working on Live Post http://livepost.in using ASP.Net MVC/jQuery/jQuery Mobile/MySQL/MongoDB/Dapper(ORM). Just replace ASP.Net MVC/Dapper with django and it will become a common stack used by alot of startups these days. Also from cost point of view the difference is very minimal - I am running it on a 1GB VPS which at my host costs just 2.95$ extra per month compared to a linux VPS with similar specs. I use Visual Web Developer 2010 express edition IDE for development which is pretty good in terms of features and is free. So its just a matter of perception nothing else.

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

> 9. .NET Micro Framework – a version of the .NET Framework related to the Smart Personal Objects Technology initiative

What are those?

TazeTSchnitzel3• 14 years ago

Well Java has its Java Rings...

rbanffy2• 14 years ago

I think I still have one...

locusm• 14 years ago

Thats their framework you run on microprocessor platforms like Netduino.

phoboslab• 14 years ago

Be aware that there also exists a "NET Compact Framework" used on the XBox, Silverlight and Mobile devices. This caught me off guard when I tried to get JavaScript running on the XBox[1], since it has a different, stripped down feature set than the real NET Framework.

[1] http://www.phoboslab.org/log/2012/04/javascript-on-the-xbox-...

jaredsohn• 14 years ago

The compact framework can also be used on Windows desktops and can make sense if you want to bundle dotnet with your app (because you want to improve the installation experience) while minimizing download size and you don't need features from the real dotnet framework.

ses4j• 14 years ago

I'm so desperate for C# .NET stuff to show up on HN that I'm even willing to vote up this uninteresting, unreadably-formatted blog post.

tomjen32• 14 years ago

C# needs to be decoupled from MS. It is too cool a language to be tied up with windows.

bunderbunder3• 14 years ago

As a certain lawsuit is illustrating, C#/.NET is much less coupled to MS than Java is to Oracle. Oracle is suing Google for creating an implementation of Java without their blessing, a clear indication that they believe they own and control the platform. By contrast, Microsoft has issued a legally-binding pledge not to sue people for creating their own implementations, and published the platform's spec as an open standard.

Mono admittedly lags a bit behind Microsoft's implementation of the platform, but that's mostly a question of resources. If Mono had been embraced by the open source community the way Java has been (as it should - see previous paragraph), then that wouldn't quite be the case.

Though not by much, and not in all respects. That crew is doing some really great stuff.

jinushaun3• 14 years ago

I've been saying this for a while now that I'm starting to sound like a doomsday-sign-carrying lunatic. C# is really enjoyable to code in, but it's a shame that it's stuck on Windows.

saryant• 14 years ago

While I generally use Scala for my personal projects I'm a .NET/C# dev by trade. There are definitely features about the .NET ecosystem that I wish I had on other platforms and that they worked as well as they do on .NET. I'm thinking about features like LINQ (sorry, Squeryl is nowhere near that yet) and the top-to-bottom integration of VS.

I'd like to see more attention paid to it as well.

dozy• 14 years ago

The DLR + IronPython is some impressive and really useful stuff.

.NET Framework Version Comparision

Related Stories