3 ms·

I have never seen any good .NET code in the wild. A typical story IMO is to come into a workplace where they are trying to dump legacy .NET systems as soon as p

I have never seen any good .NET code in the wild. A typical story IMO is to come into a workplace where they are trying to dump legacy .NET systems as soon as possible because they are incredibly brittle. .NET seems to be one of the biggest software scams of all time. Great vendor lock-in though. Visual Studio, MS-SQL, LINQ, Entity framework etc... the only solution is to rewrite everything.

emodendroket 8y ago
I don't know what you're on about. C# is basically a "better Java" so there's no particular reason you can't write good software in it.
- Sylos 8y ago
  That's very subjective. C# has tons of useless keywords that you just know some arrogant dev is going to use because they can, which then no junior can work with. It also has a worse ecosystem for writing server software (while obviously a better ecosystem for writing Windows applications) and is less suitable for cross-platform work.
  - oaiey 8y ago
    Can you elaborate on this "keyword" statement? I find the statement very confusing especially when comparing it to C, modern C++, modern Java or any functional "magic" languages. The second part is true. .NET does not share the same wide ecosystem as Java.
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    It is subjective, but things like genetics and reflection I think are better in C#. I am not sure which keywords you think are "useless." Either way though, they're quite similar. There is no innate quality about C# where the code has to be terrible and the only hope is a total rewrite in something else.
  - Const-me 8y ago
    > is less suitable for cross-platform work I have hands-on experience with Unity3D and .NET Core 2. Both are cross-platform and worked relatively well. I’ve built MacOS, iOS, Android software with Unity, and Linux software with .NET Core. I’ve heard Xamarin is also good for mobiles but haven’t personally used it.
Zekio 8y ago
I would say StackOverflow is a pretty good example
- Roboprog 8y ago
  Stack Overflow works pretty well. But perhaps not without some pain for those involved making it: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-ruby/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-ruby/
  - emodendroket 8y ago
    I've done legacy work in both and I'd never choose Ruby over C#. It might be a little faster to write the code the first time around, but maintaining a big legacy project stinks. Also, none of Atwood's reasons is "I don't like working in C#." And several of the concerns in this post are obsolete.
    - Roboprog 8y ago
      Actually, I find Ruby code much easier to look at than most Java / C# UglyCapsRunOn word-soup. YMMV.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        Well who cares about that, really. I'm not talking about how pretty the code is; I'm talking about the ease of maintaining it. Ruby code frequently requires digging through the method and methods it calls to figure out the expected input.

emodendroket 8y ago

I don't know what you're on about. C# is basically a "better Java" so there's no particular reason you can't write good software in it.

Sylos 8y ago
That's very subjective. C# has tons of useless keywords that you just know some arrogant dev is going to use because they can, which then no junior can work with. It also has a worse ecosystem for writing server software (while obviously a better ecosystem for writing Windows applications) and is less suitable for cross-platform work.
- oaiey 8y ago
  Can you elaborate on this "keyword" statement? I find the statement very confusing especially when comparing it to C, modern C++, modern Java or any functional "magic" languages. The second part is true. .NET does not share the same wide ecosystem as Java.
- emodendroket 8y ago
  It is subjective, but things like genetics and reflection I think are better in C#. I am not sure which keywords you think are "useless." Either way though, they're quite similar. There is no innate quality about C# where the code has to be terrible and the only hope is a total rewrite in something else.
- Const-me 8y ago
  > is less suitable for cross-platform work I have hands-on experience with Unity3D and .NET Core 2. Both are cross-platform and worked relatively well. I’ve built MacOS, iOS, Android software with Unity, and Linux software with .NET Core. I’ve heard Xamarin is also good for mobiles but haven’t personally used it.

Zekio 8y ago

I would say StackOverflow is a pretty good example

Roboprog 8y ago
Stack Overflow works pretty well. But perhaps not without some pain for those involved making it: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-ruby/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-ruby/
- emodendroket 8y ago
  I've done legacy work in both and I'd never choose Ruby over C#. It might be a little faster to write the code the first time around, but maintaining a big legacy project stinks. Also, none of Atwood's reasons is "I don't like working in C#." And several of the concerns in this post are obsolete.
  - Roboprog 8y ago
    Actually, I find Ruby code much easier to look at than most Java / C# UglyCapsRunOn word-soup. YMMV.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      Well who cares about that, really. I'm not talking about how pretty the code is; I'm talking about the ease of maintaining it. Ruby code frequently requires digging through the method and methods it calls to figure out the expected input.