Re:Visual Studio 2013
by danbruc on Monday June 03, 2013 @06:58PM
(#5816639)
I am still unable to see the problem. It's your decision if you switch to 4.5 or not. If you have projects targeting 4.0 and are unable to ensure that you code does not hit any of the documented breaking changes or if you are unwilling to take the risk of hitting unknown or undocumented compatibility problems, then don't switch to 4.5. Or take a hybrid solution - develop against 4.5 but test against 4.0.
We have deviated quite a bit from the original comment - you can install different Visual Studio (and .NET framework) versions side by side if you have to support legacy projects. There are some case where this will not work - obvious examples are .NET 1.0 not being supported since Vista, .NET 1.1 since Windows 8 - but there are still a lot of cases where this works just fine. If an side by side installation is not possible, you can still just setup up a second machine or a virtual machine for you legacy development needs. Not being able to upgrade Visual Studio because you have to support legacy projects is mostly a non-issue.
Re:Visual Studio 2013
by pjmlp on Tuesday June 04, 2013 @12:57AM
(#5817800)
In our case teams that are supporting .NET 4.0 are not allowed to upgrade for .NET 4.5, precisely because of the .NET 4.5 bug fixes that lead to different behaviors between versions.
We have deviated quite a bit from the original comment - you can install different Visual Studio (and .NET framework) versions side by side if you have to support legacy projects. There are some case where this will not work - obvious examples are .NET 1.0 not being supported since Vista, .NET 1.1 since Windows 8 - but there are still a lot of cases where this works just fine. If an side by side installation is not possible, you can still just setup up a second machine or a virtual machine for you legacy development needs. Not being able to upgrade Visual Studio because you have to support legacy projects is mostly a non-issue.