4 ms·
.Net is one of our workhorses in desktop app development. Maybe it's not the latest trend but there are still a lot of utility apps written in .Net. If your cor
by zwieback 13y ago
.Net is one of our workhorses in desktop app development. Maybe it's not the latest trend but there are still a lot of utility apps written in .Net. If your corporate PCs run Windows, as almost all still are, then .Net is your most convenient choice.
- chris_wot 13y agoNot if you factor in Windows and SQL Server licensing costs. Most people are using ASP.NET (one of the many incarnations, at least). .NET on individual workstations is... irrelevant. Largely.
- zwieback 13y agoNot sure what you mean. Ignoring the server side for a moment, are people not using .Net or do you just not like it? And once you've paid for Visual Studio, what other costs are there, assuming your workstation already runs Windows?
- chris_wot 13y agoYou present a false dichotomy. I neither said that people aren't using .NET or that I dislike it. I'm saying that having .NET installed on the desktop doesn't sell copies of their latest operating system, and for most corporates they are deploying web apps via ASP.NET. I see no reason why I should be ignoring the server marketplace, because IMHO frankly that's where the corporate dollar is.
- zwieback 13y agoGot it, thanks for clarifying. My original point was just that .Net isn't dying as the article said. It may not be making a lot more dollars for MS, though, agree with that.
- TheAnimus 13y ago>.NET on individual workstations is... irrelevant. Largely. In your world maybe. For bespoke LOB applications, it really isn't.
- henrikschroder 13y agoThe cost of Windows Web Server licenses is peanuts when measured against the total cost of building and running the system. SQL Server is expensive, but completely optional. Just because you use .Net, it doesn't mean you have to use any other piece from the MS stack.