4 ms·
The most interesting bit that always comes up with the DotNet Foundation is that all the trusted actors who you would expect to be associated are so worn out th
by thrower123 5y ago
The most interesting bit that always comes up with the DotNet Foundation is that all the trusted actors who you would expect to be associated are so worn out that they don't take much of a role, and instead less scrupulous and more power-hungry types take their places.
- throw868788 5y agoJust like any other human made structure even outside of programming I've known. Admittedly I think the foundation is mostly independent from .NET and is around open source projects in the ecosystem limiting the damage this could cause. Even if it is changing hands, or even collapses its role is limited and I argue doesn't affect the adoption or usage of the platform all that much. On the other hand as an example I have experience first hand where this stuff can matter relating to some other comments on this thread: the confusion around which JVM distribution to use is directly tied to the JVM and its different builds. That doesn't seem to be the biggest problem for people in that ecosystem, but just like this .NET foundation topic confuses people outside the ecosystem as people are cautious and don't understand the implications. (i.e. do I have to pay Oracle for support if I need to limit my liability?). If I'm choosing between two tech stacks and only one has this question mark in a time limited fashion I might choose an alternative instead. Other languages requiring significant investment (e.g. Corporate Languages) have their issues too. The appeal of Java and the .NET platforms to me is their longevity and their seriousness in keeping it alive over the decades.