It just doesn’t make sense that in order to add up functionality to the 2.0 framework without touching the runtime, yet another framework version is created and deployed in a different folder. It is extremely confusing as to what will be the implications. Let’s say I have an existing 2.0 application and I want to take advantage of the WinFX in order to add/implement workflows. Do I have first to start worrying about how to migrate my current application from 2.0 to 3.0 or the classes we currently use from the 2.0 framework are still valid under the 3.0, amen of the new WinFX additions. Why not just adding a new namespace and new assembly for this piece, if it is dependent on the 2.0 framework but won’t replace it????
Migrating from 1.0 to 1.1 caused some pain, more pain (necessary evil IMHO) to migrate from 1.1 to 2.0. Do we have another migration at sight, or it would be just an add up?
It would be worth to have an article published on MSDN about the cause of this decision.
I found the article on MSDN, it still won’t explain why the versioning convention. As some bloggers have already discussed, having a Framework 3.0 and CLR 2.0 doesn’t make much sense when they precisely state “…because .NET Framework 3.0 is an additive release”
Deploying Microsoft .NET Framework Version 3.0