Here is a link to the original article:
http://www.cadnovation.com/articles/2012-04-15_migration_dotnet_2013/migration_de_solution_dotnet_pour_autocad_2013.htm. This URL has the advantage of showing the text and images in its full width.
To automatically translate it, you can also go on
http://translate.google.com then translate the URL from French into English, giving this link:
http://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cadnovation.com%2Farticles%2F2012-04-15_migration_dotnet_2013%2Fmigration_de_solution_dotnet_pour_autocad_2013.htm&act=urlNote: Something annoying is that the translation stops after about three quarters of the text length.
Thanks to Stephen Preston for his lights on extensibility (what is more natural from a PhD in laser technology).
Even if, for common use, extensibility, as defined in FrameWork 3, should be used sparingly for the reasons I mentioned earlier. I understand that for reasons of portability between different platforms, Autodesk had virtually no choice.
Nevertheless, I do not treat this subject in the article but Managed Extensibility Framework which is a new feature of FrameWork 4.0. Its goal is really quite different. Here is a link that shows the top 10 reasons to use it:
http://www.wintellect.com/cs/blogs/jlikness/archive/2010/04/06/ten-reasons-to-use-the-managed-extensibility-framework.aspx and this: "An Introduction to Managed Extensibility Framework (MEF) - Part I":
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/188054/An-Introduction-to-Managed-Extensibility-Framework. You will gain in discovering. It allows you to create skins to manage your CAD standards so they can adapt to you various customers, without changing the core base.
Something very interesting arises from the article by Stephen: idiosyncrasy or peculiar behavior of the VB and C # statements concerning Imports vs. Using. If TheMaster and I are from those 2 different worlds, this probably explains why certain words are misinterpreted or seem so important for one but not to the other because we are accustomed to different reference systems.
Another significant element: the original article was almost twice longer than the one that was presented before it was translated automatically. By reducing it, it may well be that certain essential passages were lost but it did not jump yet in my eyes because the topics are still too fresh in my memory. But is it really important to hang on small details and not see the rest?