T wrote:
On 3/6/19 11:42 PM, Paul wrote:
Dammit,
it worked *perfectly* at one point. How annoying
You sound like a Dot Net programmer! :-)
Why is it again I need 300,386 different versions of Dot Net
installed anyway?
Simple.
The versions stopped being useful after 3.5.
But if you put 4.7 in the latest Visual Studio,
the developer is clueless and compiles in a 4.7
dependency, a WinXP user can't install 4.7, and the WinXP
user will be "too bad, so sad" and will immediately
run out and buy a Win10 computer :-/ Or so I'm told.
Up to a certain number, they were "layers in a cake".
Later, versioning was used to deprecate (stick a fork in)
older OSes.
Everything above 3.5 is "imaginary", like
"Sparkle Ponies", and is there just to rubbish
the older OSes. (So you can't use Vista say.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
*******
Java has a stack too, yet you don't see versioning
being waved around like a club. Java uses its numbers
for versions, and obviously at some point, older
stuff falls out of support. But they don't use
version numbers with quite as much glee as Microsoft does.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/T2QZK.png
*******
As for Mayayanas mention of VSRuntimes, I had a kooky
experience the other day. I tried to run the latest
Intel Processor Identification Utility.
1) Try to install
2) Wants .NET 4.7 or whatever. Great.
Doesn't have it onboard. And the user is expected
to Google ass off to find it.
3) Go back and try and install again.
Wants VS Runtime of some year, leaving the
user to puzzle out exactly which download that
would be, and whether both the x86 and x64 need
to be installed.
4) Try to install again. Finally, installs.
5) Run program. Prints three or four numbers on the
screen. The kind of stuff you could get with
"two Peeks()" :-) The C program to do that would
be about ten lines long. The problem ? You'd have
to run as Administrator.
Just... awful... What were they thinking ?
Why does software have to be *that* bad, exactly ?
Is this a skill they could teach in a university, or what ?
Paul