Link Details

Microsoft tried, but it couldn't win the hearts and minds of developers who weren't already indoctrinated -- and it alienated others along the way

Posted by andrew.c.oliver  |   Aug 29 2013 / 11:15

Add your comment


Html tags not supported. Reply is editable for 5 minutes. Use [code lang="java|ruby|sql|css|xml"][/code] to post code snippets.

Comments

User 236437 avatar

stimpy77 replied ago:

Didn't read. Just the title is wonked. .NET was one of the software industry's greatest successes of all-time. It was on par with, and for some time in excess of, the Java ecosystem. I've been in the industry for 15 years and never had it so good as I did with .NET. Clearly you didn't get it. So sorry for your loss.

Reply 2 votes
User 936981 avatar

Jeremy Morgan replied ago:

I upvoted the article, because I think it was well written and presented well. I don't agree with it a bit though. Calling the death of .Net is simply wrong. It's growing and flourishing, while not as talked about in "hacker" hipster startup circles. It's a platform for grown ups, and that's why it's used in things like financial institutions, corporate enterprises, government etc. It's "big iron" and not the best choice for your beer finder app, doesn't mean it's dead. I agree with stimpy77, after working over the years I love it, and so do lots of others. You can call it dead and talk about how it died once people stop using it in masses like they are now.

Reply 2 votes
User 334116 avatar

Grzegorz Grzybek replied ago:

I've also upvoted because of the arguments. "People coded to .Net because they were coding for SharePoint or BizTalk" - I work in a company that has generally Java and .NET division. I like .NET both as a platform and as a language (C#) but when I look at what my colleagues do in full-time, it's 100% SharePoint WebParts for the customers who bought SharePoint once and have to stick with it forewer. In my previous company there were many .NET Forms projects but all have started in the old days where fat clients were actually needed. All new projects are Web/Mobile based and it just means Web=Java, Mobile=Android... So I've upvoted the criticism of the .NET-community attitude that ".NET will replace Java" - it won't. regards Grzegorz Grzybek

Reply 2 votes
User 936981 avatar

Jeremy Morgan replied ago:

Many people have also prematurely called the death of Java as well, just as false. .Net has made a lot of inroads to replacing Java on the Desktop, but never really succeeded there either, just became a viable alternative. Android arguably brought Java back, but if you look at the big iron enterprise, Java never left.

Reply 1 votes
User 1015259 avatar

andrew.c.oliver replied ago:

Let's be clear, I don't think .NET is dead yet. It will continue to be the Windows API of the present so long as people write only-Windows apps, it will be around.

Reply 0 votes
User 236437 avatar

stimpy77 replied ago:

Let's be clear, Microsoft's motivation for .NET is not about a "Windows API". The Windows API in both the Win32 flavor and the WinRT flavor is its own beast. .NET is at worst about a Microsoft stack. An enterprise shop built upon a standard Microsoft stack might include Microsoft .NET, Microsoft SQL Server, Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft BizTalk, Microsoft System Center, and so on and on. Besides .NET, Windows is the cheapest component of all of these. Calling it a "Windows API" is so last decade. Indeed, Microsoft has actually adopted node.js and Javascript as a first class platform on Windows, along with PHP etc, and none of these have any interaction with .NET. Meanwhile, the open source flavor of .NET is entirely neutral about its host platform, as it runs on Linux and Mac, all because the CLR is essentially much the same thing in function as the Java Runtime Environment which was from its very onset a "write once run anywhere" platform.

Reply 0 votes
User 236437 avatar

stimpy77 replied ago:

... Acknowledging that the reason why .NET via Mono did not get traction on Linux / Mac is because enterprises didn't adopt it there, because if they wanted to go the free/open source route they already have Java and if they wanted to go the paid license / paid full support route they want the "real deal" route of the Microsoft stack. If Java didn't exist .NET would be everywhere. Except on iOS. Then again, if Java didn't exist there would have been no incentive for Microsoft to create .NET in the first place.

Reply 1 votes
User 225552 avatar

acoliver replied ago:

pppptttt you're making the points I made in the article yet stated you didn't read it. Too boring.

Reply 0 votes
User 236437 avatar

stimpy77 replied ago:

The points I finally concluded with were concessions. I did look over your article, after all these comments; my initial first comment about my not reading it is no longer accurate. (My reaction stands.)

Reply 0 votes
User 236075 avatar

henk replied ago:

A nice contrast to this article: an analysis of .NET (called the .NET Initiative back then) when .NET just started http://informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=21465

Reply 0 votes
User 236437 avatar

stimpy77 replied ago:

The .NET Initiative had virtually nothing to do with the .NET technology. The .NET Initiative was the name given to Microsoft being clueless as to how they should brand and sloganize themselves as a company over the next few years. The article you link to illustrates the mass confusion Microsoft brought upon itself during a moment of unique opportunity they created for themselves with the actual technology.

Reply 0 votes

Recommended Links

Scala
Written by: Ryan Knight
Featured Refcardz: Top Refcardz:
  1. Apache Hadoop
  2. Play
  3. Akka
  4. Debugging JavaScript
  5. Design Patterns
  1. Apache Hadoop
  2. REST
  3. Java
  4. Git
  5. Java Performance
Connect with DZone