Has a Decade of .NET Delivered On Microsoft's Promises?

cyclocommuter writes with this snippet from The Register's assessment of whether Microsoft's .NET framework has been a success: "If the goal of .NET was to see off Java, it was at least partially successful. Java did not die, but enterprise Java became mired in complexity, making .NET an easy sell as a more productive alternative. C# has steadily grown in popularity, and is now the first choice for most Windows development. ASP.NET has been a popular business web framework. The common language runtime has proved robust and flexible. ... Job trend figures here show steadily increasing demand for C#, which is now mentioned in around 32 per cent of UK IT programming vacancies, ahead of Java at 26 per cent."

Comments

No

[smooth wombat]

Next question.

Re:Yes.

[gtall]

Wow, did you swallow a MS marketdroid?

Re:.Not

[rock_climbing_guy]

Goodness gracious! What were they thinking?

Why did this platform have to be named ".net" Oh, Microsoft .net, let me point my browser at that. As if there couldn't be a worse name than .net, we come out with Mono? Mono??? Seriously, freaking mono? That sounds like something that's going to make me sick!!! Why don't we have open source aids and flu libraries while we're at it?

hahahaha!

[mpapet]

96% of all phones support it,

You mean 'support' by having device-specific runtimes, right? The mythic write once run everywhere is just that, a myth. How about a stop watch application as an example? A stop watch, while not simple is neither overly complex either and has no special GUI, yet phone specific.

“enterprise” server development
The complexity of Java Server apps creates as many issues as they appear to solve and hasn't been shown to provide an overwhelming advantage. "Broken Windows" parable all over again.

Java is no 'silver bullet.' Which is why there are at least a few viable alternatives. You would be wise to step off the Java bandwagon before Oracle screws it up even more.