> I totally don’t understand rant about integration with AD from C# standpoint. Seems like you meant .NET Framework. The C# libraries for AD integration weren'

> I totally don’t understand rant about integration with AD from C# standpoint. Seems like you meant .NET Framework. The C# libraries for AD integration weren't very extensive back in the day, but where the "magic" broke was when you extended the extra properties on your AD objects and then none of the AD library functions worked. This despite the fact that AD has extension attributes where it worked, it was only if you extended it. > I also don’t see how any other language would do any better in manipulating Active Directory settings. Back then I think it's probably debatable, and you could be right. I can't say because I'm not sure how PowerShell was back then, but I believe it wasn't as included in .NET back then, so maybe. Today I think C# is terrible for AD work. You're going to want all your AD automation and API's to be handled through orchestrated runbooks, and they only support PowerShell and Python. This is sort of by design by Microsoft though so I don't really fault them for not having good C# tooling available for AD anymore. > Same for ASP stuff, that is like a web framework - like for example Ruby on its own does not have anything to do with Rails as RoR is web framework for Ruby so, also really weird rant if we talk about language itself. I guess that is a fair point, but throughout my decades in the industry I've never seen anyone use C# for anything without it's frameworks. So while it's true that our problems are mainly with two frameworks, it's not like we would have ever chosen to work with C# if we didn't need it's OData framework. I think you may be missing the point I'm trying to make though. It's not that C# is terrible, as such. While I certainly think it is a horrible language to work with, I think this because a lot of the "automation magic" the different frameworks do for you break down once you stop doing basic CRUD functionality with them. As long as things work as intended, however, it's a very likeable language and the reason I hate working with it is simply that it wastes too much of my time when it stops working. You're certainly free to write me off as you like, because you're right, all my criticism here is with the frameworks. I think the only thing I really dislike about the language itself is how "var" became the standard way to define things instead of giving them types.