[fiveo]

I've just started to scratch the surface of ASP.NET MVC 2.0 and they just release RC v3?

Nuts.

[johns]

Other than Razor (which is optional), not that much has changed and it is a pretty painless upgrade. Under the old way they used to version software, this is really more like ASP.NET MVC 1.5 SP1

[scotth]

The other thing worth noting is way better support for dependency injection, through the DependecyResolver class. I'm becoming particularly attached to the IViewPageActivator interface for providing custom view creation logic (in my case, injection of helpers and custom session information into the page object).

[bradhe]

Heh, sure it's optional but if you stack it up next to the TERRIBLE Web Forms syntax...

[johns]

Well if you were using Spark already, you can go to v3 without changing your templates

[ern]

Spare a thought for those of us who have to maintain ASP.NET 2.0 Web Forms apps for a living.

[abrudtkuhl]

I know! They iterate pretty fast. I love it but it's hard to keep up

[DougBTX]

If you've not read it, a classic Joel article: Fire And Motion http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html

[sk5t]

An interesting article... applies very well to the LINQ2SQL / EMF / ADO.NET quagmire. Not so much to fairly mild iterations of MVC.

[fiveo]

What about ASP.NET, ASP.NET 1.1, ASP.NET 2.0, ASP.NET AJAX, and now ASP.NET MVC + varieties of view engine?

What about WinForms, WPF, Silverlight?

[newt]

Winforms to WPF was about 20 years, and a sorely needed change.

Silverlight is iterating quite quickly, but then they have WPF to build on.

[fiveo]

I'm talking about WinForms .NET. .NET itself is not even 10 years old.