Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dying platform: .Net

roundcrisis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 110 posts

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#51

Post by numo16 »

potatolicious wrote: post #12
cl8ton wrote: post #3

From what perspective are you coming from that you think .NET is dying (student, education, corporate, open source)? MS has never been a technology leader as they tend to let others make the early mistakes then charge in, ask Netware, OS2/IBM, Sony, Netscape. Early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese!

All of the above? A little background: some of my earliest bits of programming were on VB5, then VB6, and then .NET 1.0 when that first showed up. I spent most of my early years on MS platforms, and for the most part I liked them. I picked up a Surface RT to hack on last year, after a long absence from .NET. The state of .NET shocked me. For one thing, the subset of .NET that's available on WinRT vs. "real" Win8 vs.…

Since you've been away from .NET for a while, you may have missed nuget[1], which makes it super easy to incorporate open source .NET libs into your projects directly from visual studio.

[1]: http://nuget.org/

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#52

Post by chiph »

maresca wrote: post #20

I've been programming .NET since 1.1 and love the platform. It just works. But, I pick my technologies carefully. I called silverlight not working out. I've been staying away from WCF/WPF. No one writes in the news when something goes right, only wrong. This article is more rabble rousing than anything. You can focus on the things that are going wrong. If you are putting out new technologies, some are going to fail.…

I agree - Silverlight was obviously a tactical response to the threat of Flash. When Flash went into (steep) decline, there was no reason to keep Silverlight around. Both of us called this one correctly.

WCF, on the other hand, is doing really well and is a decent approach to a framework around enterprise communications. But I admit that more often than not, I'm hand-coding my proxies to avoid code-bloat from generated DTOs (I'd rather use a reference to a shared DLL so the compiler alerts me to breaking changes)

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#53

Post by saosebastiao »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #44
rubinelli wrote: post #16

Java isn't looking too good, either, at least in the desktop. You know your platform has jumped the shark when it comes bundled with a toolbar. The question is, where to next? I've been watching Go for a while, but it looks like a tool from Googlers, for Googlers. Pulling all my dependencies from HEAD? No, thank you. Ironically, Javascript looks very promising right now, compared with the alternatives.

You want to do JavaScript on the desktop? No. Go learn Python and Haskell.

Haskell on the desktop? You should have stopped with Go.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#54

Post by sanderjd »

exch wrote: post #35
cypher543 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it strange that people are hung up on this remote dependency "issue." It's a convenience for small projects and quick samples. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from checking out a Go package locally and importing it just like any other dependency in any other language.

I'd have to agree here. There is no difference between Go's way of managing external dependencies, compared to any other language/platform where you use external packages. Whether they are manually downloaded and built, or pulled from some kind of source-control repo. The `go get ...` approach is just a convenience tool you can use /IF/ you want to. I get the impression that much of the complaints stem from not reall…

The real shame is that so many people are willing to outsource their opinion-building to random ranters on random message boards.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#55

Post by crag »

maresca wrote: post #20

I've been programming .NET since 1.1 and love the platform. It just works. But, I pick my technologies carefully. I called silverlight not working out. I've been staying away from WCF/WPF. No one writes in the news when something goes right, only wrong. This article is more rabble rousing than anything. You can focus on the things that are going wrong. If you are putting out new technologies, some are going to fail.…

You know I was playing around with ASP Web Pages (Razor) and loved it. Too bad WebMatrix is Windows only.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#56

Post by sergiotapia »

monstrado wrote: post #38

A few weeks back I spent a weekend playing around with .NET and Visual Studio, I was very surprised by how pleasant the language (C#) and the IDE was to use. Also, I went into it with virtually no C# experience (only Java), and I pretty much picked it up immediately, I'm sure there are many differences but I was able to figure out the syntax immediately. I found the IDE really nice, and the debugging tools really pow…

The dev tools for the .NET ecosystem are bar none. It's one of the only things I miss about working with C# when I switched over to Ruby. That and Linq. :P

Give me a visual debugger over some terminal crap any day.

In this regard RubyMine is a very good solution to debugging Rails applications and Ruby code.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#57

Post by melc »

At the server side it simply gives no choice but proprietary and unreliable ms systems and a weak app/web server (iis). The desktop client side is only good for ms clients. For the devices realm there is nothing to talk about really and regarding windows phone it's a bit early. I've worked with .net in the past but now i usually avoid it as much as i can.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#58

Post by martijn_himself »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #31

Microsoft has too many developers and not enough innovation. They encourage a design attitude that everything has to operate like the flight deck of a 747. Their culture has been incestuous so long that any change is terribly unlikely. There are some really, really sharp guys at Microsoft. Not only does the community deserve better products from such a great company, the developers in many cases have an very unpleasa…

>They encourage a design attitude that everything has to operate like the flight deck of a 747

I agree. If you have ever done any development using SharePoint or Dynamics CRM API's and SDK's you will know how much of an overengineered mess these applications are. The unnecessary complexity of these applications does however create demand for thousands of developers to untangle the mess.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#59

Post by neogodless »

ohwp wrote: post #19

According to a lot of job sites .NET isn't dying at all... Maybe the author has the feeling it is dying because other platforms are in the news more often?

Yeah - I can tell you as a C# developer, I get contacted on Linked in several times a week. I'm not looking at all. And if they look at my history, they can see I've been at my current job just 6 weeks. That doesn't slow them down.

As mentioned above, enterprise solutions are huge. There's a lot of money there, and they rely on Microsoft solutions. Sharepoint 2010 has hooks into Dynamics CRM (accounting and CRM), data workflow and reporting (SSIS/SSRS), etc. I've only seen glimpses of 2013, and I think it'll be slow to catch on (as is typical in the corporate cycle) but it will likely be huge in the future.

Re: The dying platform: .Net

#60

Post by maresca »

chiph wrote: post #52
maresca wrote: post #20

I've been programming .NET since 1.1 and love the platform. It just works. But, I pick my technologies carefully. I called silverlight not working out. I've been staying away from WCF/WPF. No one writes in the news when something goes right, only wrong. This article is more rabble rousing than anything. You can focus on the things that are going wrong. If you are putting out new technologies, some are going to fail.…

I agree - Silverlight was obviously a tactical response to the threat of Flash. When Flash went into (steep) decline, there was no reason to keep Silverlight around. Both of us called this one correctly. WCF, on the other hand, is doing really well and is a decent approach to a framework around enterprise communications. But I admit that more often than not, I'm hand-coding my proxies to avoid code-bloat from generat…

There's something about WCF that rubs me the wrong way. I like coding Web Services. WCF just feels like bloat on top of web services. And traditional web services can be used cross-platform. I'm not sure WCF can. Maybe I'm just sticking with not fixing something that's not broken.
Post reply on HN