-
.Net Architecture
Would it be worthwhile having a .Net architecture discussion group?
-
Re: .Net Architecture
"Richardb" <rbuckingham@loyalty-magic.com> wrote in message <news:3b8b2308$1@news.devx.com>...
> Would it be worthwhile having a .Net architecture discussion group?
That would be the C# groups, since B# is obviously only a temporary
transition language. Microsoft Basic is dead. Sure, the corpse is
still twitching, but that's just the Maggots.NET.
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Space Cooties! <http://www.xenu.net/>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
-
Re: .Net Architecture
> Would it be worthwhile having a .NET architecture
> discussion group?
Richard: What would you discuss in such a group?
---
Phil Weber
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
|
Top DevX Stories
Easy Web Services with SQL Server 2005 HTTP Endpoints
JavaOne 2005: Java Platform Roadmap Focuses on Ease of Development, Sun Focuses on the "Free" in F.O.S.S.
Wed Yourself to UML with the Power of Associations
Microsoft to Add AJAX Capabilities to ASP.NET
IBM's Cloudscape Versus MySQL
|
Bookmarks