Jump to content

Paint.NET using .NET 3.5 Framework under Visual Studio 2008?


hajj_3
 Share

Recommended Posts

just wondering if there are any plans to use .NET 3.5 for a future release or not, i know you made paint.net 1.1 at first, then made it 2.0, any thoughts about moving to 3.5?

keep up the great work btw, paint.net is for ppl like me, novices, paint is rubbish, photoshop is too complex and time consuming to learn, paint.net is smack down in the middle and only a few mb :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just wondering if there are any plans to use .NET 3.5 for a future release or not, i know you made paint.net 1.1 at first, then made it 2.0, any thoughts about moving to 3.5?

keep up the great work btw, paint.net is for ppl like me, novices, paint is rubbish, photoshop is too complex and time consuming to learn, paint.net is smack down in the middle and only a few mb :)

To be honest, the .NET Framework 3.0 will only be required when the HD Photo plug-in becomes built into PDN, and 3.5 probably only by PDN 4.0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on when I can feel that a 100 MB dependency download is reasonable for a 1.5 MB image editor to require. .NET 3.5 is huge.

Unless you get 4.0 a lot bigger... However, seeing that you're only planning it ATM, you really can't know...

Also, i use .NET 3.0. Just because of some B&W converter someone made with a nice UI... I don't have a clue what it's called right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
What about just compiling with Visual Studio 2008? The C# compiler is supposed to be improved compared to the one that shipped with older versions.

The CLR in 3.0/3.5 is supposed to be better than the one in 2.0 too, right?

Even still, it isn't worth downloading a huge framework (upgrading from 2.0 means about 120 mb, upgrading from 3.0 means 50 mb, and starting from scratch is about 200mb) for one or two plug-in's, besides, the new VS allows you to compile class libaries for .NET Frameowkr 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5, the only new features you'd need are in PDN itself, you wouldn't need any of the .NET Framework libaries, apart from the drawing tools which aren't needed for PDN 3.20 because of the IndirectUI system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about just compiling with Visual Studio 2008? The C# compiler is supposed to be improved compared to the one that shipped with older versions.

The CLR in 3.0/3.5 is supposed to be better than the one in 2.0 too, right?

Even still, it isn't worth downloading a huge framework (upgrading from 2.0 means about 120 mb, upgrading from 3.0 means 50 mb, and starting from scratch is about 200mb) for one or two plug-in's, besides, the new VS allows you to compile class libaries for .NET Frameowkr 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5, the only new features you'd need are in PDN itself, you wouldn't need any of the .NET Framework libaries, apart from the drawing tools which aren't needed for PDN 3.20 because of the IndirectUI system.

at my job I did a test where I used VS2008 and compiled my solution targeting .net 2.0, the assemblies it generated were in total about 15% smaller than the ones that were generated from vs2005

I read in a programming blog that even if you target .net 2.0 in vs2008, it still uses the newer compiler, so you still get a benefit from all the lessons they learned and compiler optimizations from vs2005 to vs2008 while maintaining compatibilty.

just food for thought

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just as a test, I downloaded the 3.2 source and opened in VS2008, it converted the project, and I built it both targeting .net 2.0 and .net 3.5 here are my notes:

- the only real issue was that mt.exe does not like paths with spaces on it, even if encapsulated with quotation marks, so the project had to be in a path w/o spaces

- there is a warning about wp64 being deprecated from cl.exe (there is a separate 64 bit compiler now?)

- besides those, there were no build issues (cool!)

- some of the assemblies that were built targeting .net 2.0 were smaller but not many...but i didn't diff the binaries of assemblies whose size was identical to see if it generated the same instructions.

- some assemblies targeting .net 3.5 were larger...

- i was able to run the program and play with it a little, not a full regression test, but interesting to see

- i ran w/ /skipRepairAttempt on both debug and release mode as I didn't have the extra language strings and it couldnt rebuild them

- the error message when executing the binary regarding /skipRepairAttempt mentions that you are running the debug version, even when running the release version (?!)

comments:

- i didn't run any performance tests, it felt just as snappy.

- it was one of the easiest migrations of a project/solution i've ever had! :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already migrated to VS 2008 for the v3.22 release. The v3.xx releases will stay on .NET 2.0 as there's no real need to go with .NET 3.5. I have branched for v4.0 development and have it targeting .NET 3.5 now.

The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/

Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html

forumSig_bmwE60.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...