5 ms·

I edited it because it's not just my own experience of dealing with this. On twitter, I follow a couple Japanese developers from mainly gamedev scene and even t

I edited it because it's not just my own experience of dealing with this. On twitter, I follow a couple Japanese developers from mainly gamedev scene and even they complain they started hearing more about "but it only works on windows" and "it's not open-source". Don't you find it strange that it should be the other way around the more years pass since .NET went OSS? The link itself is also quite outdated and mainly consists of posts from Miguel de Icaza who's promoting Swift, arguably less OSS language. Take from that what you will.

johnisgood 2y ago
I assumed .NET is Windows-only and proprietary, too, but it has to do with me not having done enough research, so if it is not the case anymore, the blame is on me.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  Hey, I just want to commend you for amending your perspective (even if a little). There's a lot of intellectual hoop jumping in this thread with respect to Microsoft.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    One has to know what they don't know, or at least consider the possibility that they might not know the whole story. I did not know the whole story, but I do now, thanks to earlier comments with regarding to .NET!
- LtWorf 2y ago
  It's not windows only but it's windows first. A lot of things are missing on other OSs and not nearly all of it is open source. Fanboys are a bit in denial about this.
int_19h 2y ago
You forgot to mention that Miguel de Icaza was probably the single biggest .NET fanboy for literally decades before throwing in the towel. The fact that a person like this ended up being alienated tells volumes. I should also add that the general public only saw the tip of the iceberg in this entire episode. Miguel spent a lot of time and effort internally trying to right the .NET ship, gradually escalating through management until he finally gave up.
- neonsunset 2y ago
  I don’t doubt this but the criticism has to be rooted in facts and the current state of affairs, and you have to consider conflict of interest. It’s not too different to what you can read here. No one ever talks about whether C# offers good cohesive experience when solving a specific task, or what are the pros and cons of its build system, or how a typical .NET team looks like in a particular region. No. Instead, the complaints you will read here are about what the authors think .NET’s problems are without ever verifying if any of that is true in hopes of making swipes for god knows what reason, because posting something accurate requires knowledge on the subject and the results of a cursory search usually do not support cheap arguments. (and I see this as an embarrassment because you can learn a lot from doing research instead of repeating the same tired phrases you heard elsewhere)
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    .NET after .NET Framework is just terrible branding by Microsoft. Call it TypeScript++ or just `dot`; rebrand it Microsoft! Look at this thread full of misunderstandings and confusion around modern .NET!
    - neonsunset 2y ago
      I don't think we can survive another rename haha. It doesn't seem to have helped PHP either. But we could use a newer .NET language with better lambda lowering, dependent types, HM type inference, structs as the default data type, improved lifetime analysis and different tradeoffs w.r.t now that we're going to have zero-cost-ish non-suspending async calls.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    My point is that there was no "conflict of interest" when it comes to Miguel. If there was one person in the entire F/OSS ecosystem that ever wanted .NET to succeed, it was him. That is also why he spent so much time and effort trying to get Microsoft to not do things that alienate the community and harm .NET uptake. Speaking for myself, I happen to like .NET from the technical perspective. While both the language and the stdlib have a lot of cruft from days of yore, it can mostly be ignored, and that aside it's a fast runtime with a decently expressive type system giving one considerable flexibility to pick the right tool to model different domains. It also has great tooling around it. But this all is separate from the question of how open .NET really is, and its long-term prospects in that department.

johnisgood 2y ago

I assumed .NET is Windows-only and proprietary, too, but it has to do with me not having done enough research, so if it is not the case anymore, the blame is on me.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
Hey, I just want to commend you for amending your perspective (even if a little). There's a lot of intellectual hoop jumping in this thread with respect to Microsoft.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  One has to know what they don't know, or at least consider the possibility that they might not know the whole story. I did not know the whole story, but I do now, thanks to earlier comments with regarding to .NET!
LtWorf 2y ago
It's not windows only but it's windows first. A lot of things are missing on other OSs and not nearly all of it is open source. Fanboys are a bit in denial about this.

int_19h 2y ago

You forgot to mention that Miguel de Icaza was probably the single biggest .NET fanboy for literally decades before throwing in the towel. The fact that a person like this ended up being alienated tells volumes. I should also add that the general public only saw the tip of the iceberg in this entire episode. Miguel spent a lot of time and effort internally trying to right the .NET ship, gradually escalating through management until he finally gave up.

neonsunset 2y ago
I don’t doubt this but the criticism has to be rooted in facts and the current state of affairs, and you have to consider conflict of interest. It’s not too different to what you can read here. No one ever talks about whether C# offers good cohesive experience when solving a specific task, or what are the pros and cons of its build system, or how a typical .NET team looks like in a particular region. No. Instead, the complaints you will read here are about what the authors think .NET’s problems are without ever verifying if any of that is true in hopes of making swipes for god knows what reason, because posting something accurate requires knowledge on the subject and the results of a cursory search usually do not support cheap arguments. (and I see this as an embarrassment because you can learn a lot from doing research instead of repeating the same tired phrases you heard elsewhere)
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  .NET after .NET Framework is just terrible branding by Microsoft. Call it TypeScript++ or just `dot`; rebrand it Microsoft! Look at this thread full of misunderstandings and confusion around modern .NET!
  - neonsunset 2y ago
    I don't think we can survive another rename haha. It doesn't seem to have helped PHP either. But we could use a newer .NET language with better lambda lowering, dependent types, HM type inference, structs as the default data type, improved lifetime analysis and different tradeoffs w.r.t now that we're going to have zero-cost-ish non-suspending async calls.
- int_19h 2y ago
  My point is that there was no "conflict of interest" when it comes to Miguel. If there was one person in the entire F/OSS ecosystem that ever wanted .NET to succeed, it was him. That is also why he spent so much time and effort trying to get Microsoft to not do things that alienate the community and harm .NET uptake. Speaking for myself, I happen to like .NET from the technical perspective. While both the language and the stdlib have a lot of cruft from days of yore, it can mostly be ignored, and that aside it's a fast runtime with a decently expressive type system giving one considerable flexibility to pick the right tool to model different domains. It also has great tooling around it. But this all is separate from the question of how open .NET really is, and its long-term prospects in that department.