Hi,

C# and C#.NET are the same thing. You need to specify with VB because there are other VB 'versions'(e.g VB 6...) out of the .NET platform.

Regards,
Camilo

>C# and C#.NET are the same thing.
Technically that's not true. C# is an internationally standardized language that isn't bound to the .NET framework as long as the implementation conforms to the CLI specification. The .NET framework is one such implementation. Mono is another.

>can anyone please enlighten me?
C# is C#. There's no such thing as C#.NET in terms of official designations, but I suppose you could refer to C#.NET if you're using .NET-specific libraries in your C# code.

Hi

>There's no such thing as C#.NET in tems of official designations.

Maybe is no 'official' bu go to this link and tell me fi you still think that is not correct that are the same thing.

http://books.google.com/books?q=C%23...ource=citation

Also this is the description of C# int the MSDN Visual C# Developer Center.

"Visual C# is a simple, general-purpose programming language that enables you to build rich, connected Web and client applications on the .NET Framework."

My point its the closed connection C# - .Net Framework


I also found this link to another forum with the same Question

http://www.uberasp.net/forum.aspx?mo...ad&TopicID=673


I think that if any one really want to know should go here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308470



Regards,
Camilo

>Maybe is no 'official' bu go to this link and tell me fi
>you still think that is not correct that are the same thing.
Visual C# .NET is a compiler for C# on the .NET framework. That doesn't in any way prove that C# and C#.NET are the same thing in the way you suggest.

>Also this is the description of C# int the MSDN Visual C# Developer Center.
No, that's a description of Visual C#, which is a compiler, not the C# language itself. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between a programming language and an implementation of that language.

>My point its the closed connection C# - .Net Framework
How do you explain Mono then? Why don't you point out in the ECMA C# standard where it says that C# requires the .NET framework. I can tell you without looking that it only mentions .NET as containing the first implementation of C# and that CLI (another international standard) is based off of a subset of the .NET framework.

If you want to talk about C#, talk about C#. If you want to talk about C# in terms of .NET, talk about .NET. We're past the point where using C# means you're also using .NET.

Hi,

Obviously you didn't read the last link that I post.

Regards,
Camilo

>Obviously you didn't read the last link that I post.
Oh, you mean the one that compares Microsoft's VB.NET compiler and C# compiler? Once again, I claim that you don't know the difference between a language and an implementation of that language.

The only link you gave that even comes close to proving your point is the second to last, but that link is nothing more than some random nameless person answering the same question who also happens to be clueless.

Hi,

>Oh, you mean the one that compares Microsoft's VB.NET compiler and C# compiler?

Why don't you call it C#.Net compiler since they call it like that almost throughout the whole article ;-)

The title is:

"Differences Between Visual Basic .NET and Visual C# .NET"

And the end is:

APPLIES TO
• Microsoft Visual Basic .NET 2002 Standard Edition
• Microsoft Visual C# .NET 2002 Standard Edition

by the way would you still said this
>There's no such thing as C#.NET in terms of official designations

> some random nameless person answering the same question who also happens to be clueless.

I give you that one but what are we :-)

Regards,
Camilo

>Why don't you call it C#.Net compiler since they call
>it like that almost throughout the whole article ;-)
Because there's no need. If I say "Microsoft's C# compiler", you know that it's on .NET. If I say "Visual C#", you know that it's Microsoft's. And by the way, even Microsoft has recently started dropping .NET from the names of their products. For example, check out the documentation on Visual C# 2005 and Visual C# 2008.

Hi,

Fallowing your logic
>Because there's no need. If I say "Microsoft's C# compiler", you know that it's on .NET. If I say "Visual C#"

there is no need of say C#.Net when you say C# is the same as if you were saying C#.NET

And as you should saw in my las post "Visual C#" terms exist since 2002. And 2005 and 2008 are just the realised years. And of course that forms part of the names that represent some adds to the previous versions(Marketing).

Regards,
Camilo