Steven;

Steve Ballmer stated April of last year, "Visual Studio 7.0 will not be released until it is ready"! Hmmm. Ready for what?

Time for smoke and mirrors – just send VS to the marketing department. I am glad this is version 7.0 of Visual Studio. We can have full confidence that such a high version number will ensure a solid product! :) Now where did I place version 2,3,4, and 5 of VS?

I think Microsoft should rename Visual Studio 7.0 and give it it's true version number. 0.1 would be my suggestion.

Tom

>>> Are you looking at any CLR languages yourself?
>
>No, I'm not. I don't have a use case for it, nor do any of my clients. I've also concluded that there is no need for me to pay pioneering costs at this juncture.
>
>One day, after the new VS tool proves that it's reliable, deployable, versionable, and workable, then sure. I'll add it to the list of stuff to maybe look into.
>
>I think there is a misconception out there that the CLR is a consolidating force. It's not. The CLR is, in effect, adding several new languages -- languages that incidentally nobody is currently currently using -- to the pile of languages already out there.
>
>I'm also convinced that the beta testing cycles for Dot Net are very poor quality. People are just not using it seriously, so it isn't getting seriously tested, and as a result bugs aren't getting seriously vetted. That's just my opinion.
>
>For the moment it's all hype and vaporware and I've got better things to do :-).
>
>I don't expect to see reliable VS frameworks until after VS is reliable, and that's not a Version one-point-oh proposition. It takes at least 3 years for a framework to shake itself out assuming a reliable base to build it upon. You can do the math....
>
>
>**--** Steve