Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Expensify CEO On 'Why We Won't Hire .NET Developers'

Posted by Soulskill on from the in-the-first-world-we-work-hard-to-discriminate dept.

TheGrapeApe writes "The CEO of San Francisco-based, VC-backed startup Expensify wrote a post on the company's blog about why he considers .NET experience on a resume a general liability, saying that it will 'definitely raise questions' when screening for developers in his shop. Quoting: '.NET is a dandy language. It's modern, it's fancy, it's got all the bells and whistles. And if you're doing Windows Mobile 7 apps (which the stats suggest you aren't), it's your only choice. But choosing .NET is a choice, and whenever anybody does it, I can't help but ask "why?"' Does he have a point? Or is it counterproductive to screen devs out based on what platforms or languages they have used in the past?"

4 of 758 comments (clear)

  1. This dude is an idiot. See quotes below. by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Informative

    See, Microsoft very intentionally (and very successfully) created .NET to be as different as possible from everything else out there, keeping the programmer far away from the details such that they’re wholly and utterly dependent on Microsoft’s truly amazing suite of programming tools to do all the thinking for them.

    The dude doesn't understand the first thing about .NET

    It is not different from everything else out there.

    Programming with .NET is like cooking in a McDonalds kitchen. It is full of amazing tools that automate absolutely everything. Just press the right button and follow the beeping lights, and you can churn out flawless 1.6 oz burgers faster than anybody else on the planet.

    However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t. There’s no button for it. The patties are pre-formed in the wrong size.

    WTF? This dude is on crack.

    Why did this even get posted on /.

    Some pointy haired moron goes on a rant (that will likely be accepted on face value by a plurality of /. readers), why is this newsworthy. Why would anybody want to work for this twit. This story should be moderated flamebait and troll.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  2. Re:Money by Gutboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no licensing to use .NET. You can even get Visual Studio for free (Express editions) which have no restrictions on developing business applications.

  3. Re:Money by Giometrix · · Score: 4, Informative

    I make 6 figures coding in c#. Your argument is retarded. And what's a real language anyway. WTF does that even mean?

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
  4. Re:Money by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think (or would hope) that he means that anyone trained in .NET development is the equivalent of the burger-button-pushers. They only know how to put the burger in the and press the lights,

    That you can do more, or with different tools, isn't the point - it's that these devs are not trained to be that good.

    This is perhaps the problem with the 'easy to use', 'developer productivity' languages. Whilst you'd never question that a dev who only know PHP is likely to be unable to turn his hand to the complex or unusual tasks, the same does apply a lot to the .NET devs too. Its not their fault, its not .NET's fault, its the way its designed. Its the way it's supposed to be as that's the design decisions that were made to make the language that gives you a lot of developer productivity.

    However, I'd be more concerned about devs with *only* .NET on their CVs. They're not not going to worry about a C++ guy who has said he also did a bit of .NET, PHP, javascript, Ruby, Java, C, Smalltalk and Concurrent Euclid. Its the guys who only know how to drive Visual Studio that you do have to worry about.