4 ms·

> YARP was not a self motivated product. Engineering groups within Microsoft asked the .NET group to help them with their custom (.NET) reverse proxies. And the

> YARP was not a self motivated product. Engineering groups within Microsoft asked the .NET group to help them with their custom (.NET) reverse proxies. And the .NET group added it to their portfolio. This is an interesting take that I think is perhaps naive. Microsoft has a vested interest in pushing .NET as a development platform and can push teams to use the company's flagship programming stack in everything it does. From the perspective of given individual teams within the company this may not appear to be self-motivated but how could it not be, given the driving requirements to use MS-approved technology stacks? What your comment misses the mark on is what the driving force behind those engineering decisions is. If the decision is driven by corporate guidance to use .NET or else (this is a hypothetical), it's not exactly because the engineers themselves wanted to write something from scratch in .NET to solve a particular well-solved problem.

oaiey 5y ago
I think they are quite pragmatic. For sure they will prefer a language which they trust and can influence (see here) for green field assets but that is just one of many considerations. Office for example took React Native as a UI toolkit and invested in that instead of .NET. Typescript was invented to help them. The Windows division uses C++ based COM / WinRT and built a independent framework. Microsoft is not a pure .NET shop. There are not even a anti-Java shop
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  > I think they are quite pragmatic. For sure they will prefer a language which they trust and can influence (see here) for green field assets but that is just one of many considerations. While this is no doubt true the implied context of my reply was to the idea that Microsoft's engineers were selecting the best available option, the terms of "best" insinuating "best for anyone" rather than "best for software developer at Microsoft" -- a key difference. > Office for example took React Native as a UI toolkit and invested in that instead of .NET. Only after many years of trying to make WPF work and seeing the tide go another way. > Microsoft is not a pure .NET shop. There are not even a anti-Java shop For sure, C# and J# were basically the replacements for the failed attempted co-opting of Java that was J++. As far as I can tell their only Java related product is their own build of OpenJDK designed to be used on Azure. It's unclear what contributions they've really made in the space. While they may not be a "pure .NET shop", I'd bet they're the closest thing out there. I'm not suggesting Microsoft 100% ignores broader trends but this is sort of an aside from the crux of the original commentary.
  - 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
    > the terms of "best" insinuating "best for anyone" rather than "best for software developer at Microsoft" -- a key difference. As Ballmer used to say: “developers, developers, developers”. Microsoft has long known that what is best for developers is what is best for Microsoft.

oaiey 5y ago

I think they are quite pragmatic. For sure they will prefer a language which they trust and can influence (see here) for green field assets but that is just one of many considerations. Office for example took React Native as a UI toolkit and invested in that instead of .NET. Typescript was invented to help them. The Windows division uses C++ based COM / WinRT and built a independent framework. Microsoft is not a pure .NET shop. There are not even a anti-Java shop

BeefWellington 5y ago
> I think they are quite pragmatic. For sure they will prefer a language which they trust and can influence (see here) for green field assets but that is just one of many considerations. While this is no doubt true the implied context of my reply was to the idea that Microsoft's engineers were selecting the best available option, the terms of "best" insinuating "best for anyone" rather than "best for software developer at Microsoft" -- a key difference. > Office for example took React Native as a UI toolkit and invested in that instead of .NET. Only after many years of trying to make WPF work and seeing the tide go another way. > Microsoft is not a pure .NET shop. There are not even a anti-Java shop For sure, C# and J# were basically the replacements for the failed attempted co-opting of Java that was J++. As far as I can tell their only Java related product is their own build of OpenJDK designed to be used on Azure. It's unclear what contributions they've really made in the space. While they may not be a "pure .NET shop", I'd bet they're the closest thing out there. I'm not suggesting Microsoft 100% ignores broader trends but this is sort of an aside from the crux of the original commentary.
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 5y ago
  > the terms of "best" insinuating "best for anyone" rather than "best for software developer at Microsoft" -- a key difference. As Ballmer used to say: “developers, developers, developers”. Microsoft has long known that what is best for developers is what is best for Microsoft.