5 ms·

.NET and Java are hardly competition. If you're the suit'n'tie engineer that is Corpo through and through you might not notice the baggage but from the outside

.NET and Java are hardly competition. If you're the suit'n'tie engineer that is Corpo through and through you might not notice the baggage but from the outside looking in, both of those stacks have this sheen about them that is just too much architecture. Too many factories of factories of generators of memoized factories. Hell I even tried Kotlin, and got pretty far but it didn't take long to get smeared with some Java stuff. Compare that to Go thats lean and you can write the code with nothing but a text editor and a compiler -- it's very compelling for non-Corpo engineers. It's why I use Elixir and Nim - I can use both stacks with a simple text editor and terminal. They are built with that perspective. I don't have to fiddle around with MavenASPNetResource.xml digging into 14 different nested folders. With all due respect to the thousands of man hours that went into these technological marvels, I just don't have it in me to dive into this kind of stuff again: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/configuration/?view=aspnetcore-6.0#combining-service-collection https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/fundamentals/c... Look at it! And weep!

kcartlidge 4y ago
You're right. Go is simpler, cleaner, and lower level. But as with anything, when you have the experience even the linked-to code is second nature and not an issue - it's boilerplate, yes, but it is simple stuff that is both obvious and clear to those within the ecosystem and simply represents a different approach. Personally whilst I use Go daily I think Linq in C# is far superior to anything in Go, but it doesn't stop me using Go as well as C# because each has its own approach and each is a better fit for specific needs.
- tracker1 4y ago
  Funny, I use the fluent extensions from System.Linq a lot, but almost never use actual LINQ syntax.
  - kcartlidge 4y ago
    Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant - Linq in proper-case not caps. Another of Microsoft's annoying naming decisions.
tracker1 4y ago
You can write pretty light C# code... I find that it's C# shops I tend not to care much for, not really the language/tools so much.
za3faran 4y ago
You're comparing a fully fledged framework to a language, so not apples to apples comparison. At an employer that heavily used golang, they had to reinvent frameworks (dependency injection, web app, RPC, etc.) to standardize how work was being done, and guess what, you ended up having huge stack traces anyway that some people mock ASP.NET or Spring for, not to mention very slow build times. Modifying small parts of code and rebuilding to re run unit tests was so time consuming it's not even funny. I had a faster experience with Scala and SBT, so that's saying something. > you can write the code with nothing but a text editor and a compiler Nothing is stopping you from doing the same in other languages. At some point, the benefits of what IDEs offer (refactoring, inspections, integrated debugging, profiling, etc.) almost become necessary when working on large programs.

kcartlidge 4y ago

You're right. Go is simpler, cleaner, and lower level. But as with anything, when you have the experience even the linked-to code is second nature and not an issue - it's boilerplate, yes, but it is simple stuff that is both obvious and clear to those within the ecosystem and simply represents a different approach. Personally whilst I use Go daily I think Linq in C# is far superior to anything in Go, but it doesn't stop me using Go as well as C# because each has its own approach and each is a better fit for specific needs.

tracker1 4y ago
Funny, I use the fluent extensions from System.Linq a lot, but almost never use actual LINQ syntax.
- kcartlidge 4y ago
  Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant - Linq in proper-case not caps. Another of Microsoft's annoying naming decisions.

tracker1 4y ago

You can write pretty light C# code... I find that it's C# shops I tend not to care much for, not really the language/tools so much.

za3faran 4y ago

You're comparing a fully fledged framework to a language, so not apples to apples comparison. At an employer that heavily used golang, they had to reinvent frameworks (dependency injection, web app, RPC, etc.) to standardize how work was being done, and guess what, you ended up having huge stack traces anyway that some people mock ASP.NET or Spring for, not to mention very slow build times. Modifying small parts of code and rebuilding to re run unit tests was so time consuming it's not even funny. I had a faster experience with Scala and SBT, so that's saying something. > you can write the code with nothing but a text editor and a compiler Nothing is stopping you from doing the same in other languages. At some point, the benefits of what IDEs offer (refactoring, inspections, integrated debugging, profiling, etc.) almost become necessary when working on large programs.