Relentless posting of stuff nobody but me cares about

From:	Ally	11 Oct 2007 20:05
To:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	11 of 17

Well it was more the principle than expecting backwards compatibility for two versions.

And I'd really, really like to not develop using 1.1, it irritates me intensely. As usual though, it's out of my hands.

0/0

More

From:	Rowan	11 Oct 2007 22:36
To:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	12 of 17

33280.12 In reply to 33280.10
I do .NET 1.1 in VS 2003. Because our client said so. .meic \| fruuti

0/0

More

From:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	12 Oct 2007 09:42
To:	Rowan	13 of 17

33280.13 In reply to 33280.12
Your client is stupid. There are two types of creationist: morons and liars.

0/0

More

From:	Rowan	13 Oct 2007 14:02
To:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	14 of 17

33280.14 In reply to 33280.13
Our client want it to run on any PC with a XP SP1, and also wants it to be < 3MB. Which is not unreasonable, I suppose. .meic \| fruuti

0/0

More

From:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	13 Oct 2007 22:34
To:	Rowan	15 of 17

33280.15 In reply to 33280.14
.NET 2.0 runs on Windows 98, I think. Definitely Windows 2000. The runtimes are about the same size for 1.1 and 2.0, and the compiled assemblies aren't much different either; in fact, because of stuff like generics, they're probably smaller in 2.0. There are two types of creationist: morons and liars.

0/0

More

From:	Rowan	14 Oct 2007 02:50
To:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	16 of 17

33280.16 In reply to 33280.15
But generics and all that jazz aren't available in 1.1 - and 2.0 doesn't come as part of the SP1 download. Which is kind of the point. .meic \| fruuti

0/0

More

From:	THERE IS NO GOD BUT (RENDLE)	14 Oct 2007 20:57
To:	Rowan	17 of 17

33280.17 In reply to 33280.16
Oh, right, I sort of get you. Although corporate systems sans SP2 boggles the mind. There are two types of creationist: morons and liars.

0/0

More