> 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 o

> 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.