The Case for C# and .NET
chrlschn.medium.com
The Case for C# and .NET
1–10 of 376 posts
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#2I bet C# and F# are actually nice languages and I shortly considered adopting them together with Unity but at the end of the day I was still suspicious of Microsoft, and support for other platforms then windows. The article honestly sounds a bit like a straw man argument. Maybe bloomberg could have made another tech choice but then again I don't know the details.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#3I bet C# and F# are actually nice languages and I shortly considered adopting them together with Unity but at the end of the day I was still suspicious of Microsoft, and support for other platforms then windows. The article honestly sounds a bit like a straw man argument. Maybe bloomberg could have made another tech choice but then again I don't know the details.
Microsoft has first-party support for .NET on linux and it's open source. Their commitment to non-windows and non-.NET platforms has only increased over time.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#4I bet C# and F# are actually nice languages and I shortly considered adopting them together with Unity but at the end of the day I was still suspicious of Microsoft, and support for other platforms then windows. The article honestly sounds a bit like a straw man argument. Maybe bloomberg could have made another tech choice but then again I don't know the details.
Microsoft has first-party support for .NET on linux and it's open source. Their commitment to non-windows and non-.NET platforms has only increased over time.
They also have a history of randomly deciding to dump a technology (including full languages) too, leaving those invested in it holding the bag.
I like F# too, but I'll stick with one of it's non-MS controlled alternatives.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#5> For the front-end, JavaScript is unavoidable (for now)
Author really needs to give Blazor a try. I wrote some comments last week speculating that I'd use Dart or TypeScript with C# .NET on the client because WebAssembly doesn't do DOM manipulation, but turns out I should have waited to learn it better before making a comment.
I've learned I can add events and event handlers to elements without ever leaving C#. Then when I need to use a JavaScript library, I can load it just in time for my component. Once I got the hang of it I really felt like I've found the sweet spot for front end development.
Blazor is in development and will only get better. I believe it will eventually be recognized for what it is, but it's still early.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#6I bet C# and F# are actually nice languages and I shortly considered adopting them together with Unity but at the end of the day I was still suspicious of Microsoft, and support for other platforms then windows. The article honestly sounds a bit like a straw man argument. Maybe bloomberg could have made another tech choice but then again I don't know the details.
Microsoft has first-party support for .NET on linux and it's open source. Their commitment to non-windows and non-.NET platforms has only increased over time.
For running, yes. For developing, no.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#7C# and TypeScript seem to be far and away the most popular programming languages today.
At least from the perspective of recruiting in Australia.
Python is on the way up and third most popular but well behind C# and TypeScript.
Golang is on the way up but very small in terms of number of developers.
Java is on the way down but will never vanish, it's just not super popular any more.
Ruby is small enough to just be a footnote.
There's lots of other languages that make up the long tail.
The message is that if recruiting matters then you should be using C# and TypeScript.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has first-party support for .NET on linux and it's open source. Their commitment to non-windows and non-.NET platforms has only increased over time.
They also have a history of randomly deciding to dump a technology (including full languages) too, leaving those invested in it holding the bag. I like F# too, but I'll stick with one of it's non-MS controlled alternatives.
any software project or language can die, but I honestly struggle to think of a company that has a better history of long term support than Microsoft. You can fault Microsoft for quite a few things but their ability to maintain software and provide stable interfaces for devs is second to none.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#9I bet C# and F# are actually nice languages and I shortly considered adopting them together with Unity but at the end of the day I was still suspicious of Microsoft, and support for other platforms then windows. The article honestly sounds a bit like a straw man argument. Maybe bloomberg could have made another tech choice but then again I don't know the details.
If you’re a JavaScript dev, it’s worth noting that NPM is owned by Microsoft. The mistrust angle is real, but I think it’s moot when specifically talking .NET vs. JS.
Re: The Case for C# and .NET
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has first-party support for .NET on linux and it's open source. Their commitment to non-windows and non-.NET platforms has only increased over time.
They also have a history of randomly deciding to dump a technology (including full languages) too, leaving those invested in it holding the bag. I like F# too, but I'll stick with one of it's non-MS controlled alternatives.
Not with their core languages. For example, Windows still comes bundled with the old VB6 runtimes and Microsoft still supports the language even if they no longer add features to it. I'm not really sure of any major Microsoft languages that Microsoft has just dumped, unless you count their smaller more esoteric ones.
Also keep in mind that .NET Core is not only open source, but comes with complete protection from any patents Microsoft might have. The only thing Microsoft can sue people over is the .NET Core trademark itself.