3 ms·
I programmed professionally in .NET around 2003 with the initial versions. I liked it a lot and over the next years I tried to keep up to date about it on my sp
by xtracto 5y ago
I programmed professionally in .NET around 2003 with the initial versions. I liked it a lot and over the next years I tried to keep up to date about it on my spare time (I remember reading about LINQ development, the amazing CLR improvements, etc), all while I developed in Java, ruby and nowadays TypeScript.
The problem I see with .NET now (I did some tinkering on it via Unity) is that even though some of it is "open source", Micorsoft's grip is still pretty tight on it. Or at least it feels like that.
Given Microsoft's history I find it very difficult to "commit" to using the .NET framework for something real, because I feel I will be bitten back with the 'proprietary' aspects of it as soon as I go to production. It's a sunk cost that I cannot afford.
And it is not personal 'hatred' or anything given that I use VSCode as an editor and TypeScript itself comes from Microsoft.
I wish Microsoft would donate .NET to some 3rd party open source foundation (like what happens with all Apache projects, or LibreOffice, the MariaDB foundation, etc).
- oaiey 5y agoModern .NET is legally owned by the .NET Foundation. It is MIT/Apache licensed with the exception of some debuggers in VS Code (which propably conflict with VS itself). Granted, the .NET Foundation is not the Apache, Eclipse, Linux or CNCF Foundation and it is dominantly financed by Microsoft, but there are relative important peers like AWS or RedHat involved.
- hu3 5y agoPlus now we have Jetbrains Rider. So there's an excellent non-Microsoft IDE alternative.
- gtsteve 5y agoRider is no joke. If you haven't used it or gave up on it a few years back, give it a shot. There are a few things it can't do like attach to managed modules hosted in unmanaged processes but it's a joy to code in.