Is the C# 2.0 to C# 3.0 transition worth it for this project? [closed]

Answer 1

It really depends on the project, who it's intended for, and what it does.

It would be safe to guess that the .NET Framework 2.0 is on many more computers than version 3.5.

Additionally, is there anything you need from .NET 3.5 that isn't available in 2.0 (such as LINQ)? If you are dealing with a lot of queries and data, I would switch. But again, depends on the customer and if you intended to maintain this application for the foreseeable future.

Answer 2

I would... there's no harm and you get some benefits from the new features

Answer 3

Is there any C# 3.5 feature you want badly at this stage? :)

If it is LINQ, you can give LINQBridge a try.. With Studio's multi-targeting and LINQBridge, you'll be able to write local (LINQ to Objects) queries using the full power of the C# 3.0 compiler—and yet your programs will require only Framework 2.0.

Answer 4

I don't understand all you people saying don't do it. .NET 2.0 is the current (CLR) runtime. .NET 3.0 and .NET 3.5 both run on the 2.0 runtime. Moving to .NET 3.5 to get the C# 3.0 features is literally a matter of changing a single dropdown in your project properties. (OK, and deploying the 3.5 runtime to your target machines if you use some 3.5 features such as LINQ, etc. If installing 3.5 is an issue then it's not such an easy answer.)

Answer 5

If your project is nearly complete, you will probably not benefit from the new features of 3.5. For new projects, it is certainly worth a look.

Answer 6

From a technology standpoint, it's all framework version 2 and it's very little effort to achieve. The differences in 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 are just additional library code and some compiler syntactic sugar.

It's not like you need to change anything over; by targeting framework 3.5 you have more options.

From your teams point of view: Yes it's worth it. Nobody wants to work on old code-bases. While you're in the heat of development, you might as well utilize the most current stable technology.