3 ms·
The author makes a few good points (mostly about performance), but the 'myths' about open source friendly, enterprise development, and cost are disingenuous at
by stakkur 5y ago
The author makes a few good points (mostly about performance), but the 'myths' about open source friendly, enterprise development, and cost are disingenuous at best, and just plain wrong at worst.
I work in a large corporate environment, and .NET is expensive. Nobody just 'uses the Community Edition', because there are pre-established licensing arrangements and costs. I've seen the costs.
.NET, whether it's good or not, is slowly going the way of the dodo. What keeps it around is the corporate lock-in they've established for the Microsoft stack, and that's a hard thing to crack.
- neonsunset 5y agoSenior SE working in a company which has its services built almost exclusively in .NET. C#/.NET is not a major contributor to our expenses - the language of choice could've been Go, Rust, Python or, god forbid, Java - just replace Rider or VS Code with IntelliJ or other tooling and use a different base image when deploying to k8s. If you use MSFT products you might be incentivised to use C#. However, there is no incentive to not go C# when you use something else. I also found OSS process for the core libraries and runtime to be very inclusive - everyone can contribute as long as the change produces measurable and meaningful improvement serving interests of a wider audience.
- hackerfromthefu 5y agoSQL server is expensive, and windows, office etc can add up. Postgres works fine in from .NET. As for Visual Studio, Professional is all you would need and it's not too expensive, I saw $45 a month mentioned, which is around $2 a working day. In my opinion, it's actually kind of a good thing that it's not the cheapest option, because it tends to avoid the bottom feeding employers who are more likely to scam their employees.