>there is no need of say C#.Net when you say C# is the same as if you were saying C#.NET
Makes sense to me. So even if you're wrong in saying that C# and C#.NET are the same thing (which you are), you can still simply say C# and the effect is as if you weren't wrong. Nice how that works, isn't it?

>And as you should saw in my las post "Visual C#" terms exist since 2002.
I still don't see your point. Are you trying to argue that because a single implementation is called Visual C# .NET, suddenly we have to accept C#.NET as a viable name for the internationally standardized language as a whole? You don't find that ludicrous?

>And 2005 and 2008 are just the realised years.
Yes, Microsoft decided that tacking .NET onto everything is redundant for their products. That makes sense for their products as Microsoft develops and distributes the .NET framework. It's reasonably safe to assume that they won't use another implementation of the CLI specification for their development tools.

Hi,

I am glad you've got my point.

As you can see all the people that post in the C# sesion in this forum or in the msdn C# Forums(a lot of them Microsoft MVP) don't say C#.NET or Visual C# because they know(as we do) that they're talking about C#.NET(There are not other C#!. that is why there is no reason for specifying, but you know that). Which leads to the conclusion tha C# and C#.NET are the same thing.

Regards,
Camilo

>don't say C#.NET or Visual C# because they know
>(as we do) that they're talking about C#.NET
Well, they don't say Visual C# because it's possible to write and build C# code outside of that particular IDE. It's also rather silly to assume that the C# discussed on the MSDN forum isn't focused on .NET. And it's a safe assumption here too because most of the people asking questions are like you: completely oblivious to anything beyond Visual Studio.

>There are not other C#!
There's only one C#, and that's the C# defined by ECMA-334. There can be many implementations of C#, and .NET contains one of them. A completely different implementation is Mono, so would you call it "C# Mono" too?

>Which leads to the conclusion tha C# and C#.NET are the same thing.
C#.NET is a term invented by the clueless. I'm willing to accept it if you want to talk about C# code that uses .NET-specific libraries, but using it to refer to the language as a whole is actually an insult to all of the people who work hard to keep the language from being locked in to Microsoft platforms.

Hi

>I'm willing to accept it if you want to talk about C# code that uses .NET-specific libraries

Can you tell me where its use C# outside of the .NET Framework.

>There's only one C#, and that's the C# defined by ECMA-334

Firs of all C# existed long before it was standarized. And ECMA-334 its just that.
A standard of the language.

>but using it to refer to the language as a whole is actually an insult to all of the people who work hard to keep the language from being locked in to Microsoft platforms.

C# was born at microsoft ;-).

> because it's possible to write and build C# code outside of that particular IDE.

Visual C# IDE is one of the forums in the msdn forums there is Visual C# General, and Visual C# Language(so I don't see the lock to the IDE)

"The Mono C# compiler is considered feature complete for C# 1.0 and C# 2.0 (ECMA) and also contains some of the C# 3.0 features."

As you can see C# 3.0 dosn't fallow the ECMA specification yiet. So its not C#?.

Regards,
Camilo

There has no c#.NET .Just Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2005

>Can you tell me where its use C# outside of the .NET Framework.
How many times do I have to mention Mono before you actually read it?

>Firs of all C# existed long before it was standarized.
Yep, that's how it goes with all standardized languages.

>And ECMA-334 its just that. A standard of the language.
Yes, and the standard definition is the language. The standard doesn't require C# to be bound to the .NET framework. Is that such a difficult concept to understand?

>C# was born at microsoft ;-).
Java was born at Sun, what's your point?

>Visual C# IDE is one of the forums in the msdn forums there is Visual
>C# General, and Visual C# Language(so I don't see the lock to the IDE)
Note the "Visual" in the name. That's referring to the IDE, so "Visual C# General" is general discussion about the IDE and all that it contains. "Visual C# Language" is the version of C# that the IDE supports. Are you simply trying to be selectively stupid, or are you really that dense?

>As you can see C# 3.0 dosn't fallow the ECMA specification yiet. So its not C#?.
This is the first logical argument you've made, congratulations. And of course, the answer is that if the language is standardized, then any conforming implementation must support all of the features and rules of the standard. Extensions are allowed (which is where C# 3 falls), so until the C# 3 features are merged into the standard, they're simply extensions for Microsoft's compiler.

Hi,

>How many times do I have to mention Mono before you actually read it?

Sorry I forget the word 'serious'

>Are you simply trying to be selectively stupid, or are you really that dense?

The one that start being selective with the names was you so is someone is selectively stupid it's not me.

And if you haven't notice the indistinctive use of 'C#', 'Visual C#', 'C#.NET', 'Visual C#.NET'. then I think that we haven't been posting in the same thread ;-).

Regards,
Camilo

>Sorry I forget the word 'serious'
Ah, so you think Mono is some kind of joke then. Well, that's your opinion, and as such doesn't count as an objective argument in favor of your claims.

>And if you haven't notice the indistinctive use of 'C#', 'Visual C#', 'C#.NET',
>'Visual C#.NET'. then I think that we haven't been posting in the same thread ;-).
All I've noticed is that the terms are used interchangeably in two situations:

1) It's obvious where and how C# is being used, so the compiler/IDE can be safely assumed and there's no need to be specific about the implementation. That doesn't mean C# and C#.NET are always the same thing.

2) The person talking (eg. you) is so terribly confused as to be unable to make a distinction.

Hi,

Thanks for sticking with me. Believe me I will never say tha C# and C#.NET are the same thing.

Regards,
Camilo