3 ms·

No comparison against Java? That would be the obvious point to compare, given that it's the most comparible to .Net. Yet he has only listed dynamic (and mainl

No comparison against Java? That would be the obvious point to compare, given that it's the most comparible to .Net. Yet he has only listed dynamic (and mainly interpreted/"scripting") languages. A few points: 1) GAC Deployment of 3rd Party Libraries For many libraries it isn't required. Many libraries are fine with simply shipping the DLL. Sure, a lot of the Microsoft libraries/frameworks do require a GAC deploy, but that's to be expected. They've pretty much been designed for clicky-clicky "developers". Coders tend to avoid these like the plague : as should you too. 2) Testing nUnit works fine on both Mono and Visual Studio. What's the problem with using it? That you want to integrate with TFS? If so then your problem's clear.

gm 15y ago
FWIW, the MS world has a lot of hard-core scary-smart coders. And GAC deployment does not have much to do with clicky stuff. GAC has to with with DLL hell, and you need to jump through some extra hoops to deploy there (ie, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324168 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324168). Or maybe you intended something else in your comment, but I missed it. Is the GAC inferior (since you put the word developers in quotes) because it allows the programmer to find references without searching through folders? Sorry, I just miss the point of the comment.
- radicalbyte 15y ago
  The original article was complaining about the requirement to GAC deploy libraries and being hard to test: my reply was that it's often not required. Microsoft's own products being a prominent exception (think Entity Framework, Workflow and System.Globalization). The Microsoft World is split into two camps: a) The kind who like using the drag-and-drop tools and having all of their code generated for them. these are generally the less technical crowd. b) The engineer type, the type who know what SOLID means know when to use (and not to use) a range of patterns. They're often proficient in several languages. This crowd tends to be more technical, and more critical of the products Microsoft build on top of the CLR. I'm in the second camp (and I guess that the vast majority of MS HNers are too). The first camp are common referred to (and refer to themselves) as "Microsoft developers".. and they're by far the largest (but least vocal) group.

gm 15y ago

FWIW, the MS world has a lot of hard-core scary-smart coders. And GAC deployment does not have much to do with clicky stuff. GAC has to with with DLL hell, and you need to jump through some extra hoops to deploy there (ie, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324168 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/324168). Or maybe you intended something else in your comment, but I missed it. Is the GAC inferior (since you put the word developers in quotes) because it allows the programmer to find references without searching through folders? Sorry, I just miss the point of the comment.

radicalbyte 15y ago
The original article was complaining about the requirement to GAC deploy libraries and being hard to test: my reply was that it's often not required. Microsoft's own products being a prominent exception (think Entity Framework, Workflow and System.Globalization). The Microsoft World is split into two camps: a) The kind who like using the drag-and-drop tools and having all of their code generated for them. these are generally the less technical crowd. b) The engineer type, the type who know what SOLID means know when to use (and not to use) a range of patterns. They're often proficient in several languages. This crowd tends to be more technical, and more critical of the products Microsoft build on top of the CLR. I'm in the second camp (and I guess that the vast majority of MS HNers are too). The first camp are common referred to (and refer to themselves) as "Microsoft developers".. and they're by far the largest (but least vocal) group.