.NET Framework 2.0, SLARvol2 and FDG

With the SLARvol2 and FDG being published very right around the time that the .NET Framework 2.0 (“Whidbey”) is shipping people are naturally asking about how applicable these books are to .NET Framework 2.0… The short answer is very  applicable.


While the SLARvol2 does not cover types just added in .NET Framework 2.0, the types it does cover are still the core types in the system and are as important as every.  In addition all of the samples have been tested on the latest .NET Framework 2.0 bits and many of the colorful annotations are informed by our experiences building .NET Framework 2.0.  Depending on market demand, I would like to update Vol1 and Vol2 to the latest EMCA\ISO spec when they are released, but I’d like to have sometime for the product to be in market and for us to learn some deeper lessons before we go do the set of annotations for it.  



The FDG is targeted squarely at .NET Framework 2.0… While we have called out places where the guidance is subtly different if you are targeting .NET Framework 1.1, the focus of the book is on .NET Framework 2.0…  For example we cover generics in some depth which is only in .NET Framework 2.0.  However, it is my hope that this book is more timeless in nature and does not need to be updated for every release… The guidelines should remain, well, consistent from release to release J

Comments (3)

  1. Keith Farmer says:

    Timeless, perhaps, but I suspect such things as generics and LCG provide enough new and interesting tricks that such guidelines — were they not written with 2.0 in mind — would want at least a chapter-long erratum.

    The provider model, also, wasn’t quite hashed out in the 1.x timeframe. At least, not outside of the core application blocks.

    Timeless used to mean a good decade or two. With the changes in core capabilities in .NET, though, I suspect it’s shrunk significantly. I suppose we’ll know more after PDC. 😉

  2. John says:

    Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment…

    Why are SLAR and FDG books, rather than part of the .NET Framework documentation? It seems like Microsoft is providing poor documentation in MSDN, and then selling books that provide the level of detail that developers really need. Why shouldn’t MSFT tell their own employees that if they want to write about the CLR, the proper outlet is to contribute to the product documentation, rather than writing books?

  3. BradA says:

    John – good push back. As you may know I am really passionate about making our MSDN documentation as good as possible. In fact my goals have much less to do with selling books as they do with making developers amazingly productive on the platform. And in fact the baseraw material for both these books are on MSDN *now* and we will improve it over time.

    But the fact is that some of our customers prefer to get material in a printed book. And AW adds a lot of value in the process. Extra level of review, layout help, etc. In short I think there is a role for both MSDN and 3rd party publishers.

Skip to main content