.NET Programmers In Demand, Despite MS Moves To Metro
mikejuk writes "Are you a newbie programmer looking for a job? It seems your best bet is to opt for .NET. According to technical jobs website Dice.com, companies in the U.S. have posted more than 10,000 positions requesting .NET experience — a 25 percent increase compared to last year's .NET job count. So Microsoft may want us to move on to Metro but the rest of the world seems to want to stay with .NET."
Isn't Metro just a different GUI library on top of .Net?
Of *course* .NET programmers are demand 'despite the move to metro'. Windows 8 isn't going to be release for at least a year, and Windows shops need software built *now*.
I mean, c'mon... that's not even wrong!
Metro is merely a new style of app interface that can be written using .NET, not a replacement for it.
Metro is a UI on top of Windows 8.
WinRT is the new Windows 8 runtime, which will be accessible by C++, C# and any .Net language. The .Net standard libraries will be available for Windows 8 Desktop applications but not for Metro applications, which will be written targeting WinRT.
So, the summary is wrong because: .Net-related skills remain central in Windows 8 even when targeting Metro
a) Metro is not a development framework
b)
My book: Friendly F#, fun with game development and XNA; my game: Galaxy Wars by VSTeam; my gamedev language: Casanova.
The windows 8 only is a big trun off.
And the Must be in app store is a other killer as well. No way adobe will give MS 30% the cost of the CS pack just to have a Metro Photoshop.
Windows 8 isn't out yet! Right now it is just a developer preview. That means it isn't even in beta yet, it is still effectively alpha, meaning feature incomplete. They just want people to be able to start learning the new development environment that will be coming. It has a long way to go before it is out on the desktop (a year or more). Of course even once it is out, it has a longer way to widespread adoption. It'll be several years before lots of desktops feature Metro.
So why in the hell would businesses be looking for Metro programmers now even if it was a new programming method (which you correctly point out it is not)? They aren't going to suddenly switch all their development to a product that hasn't been released.
Nobody ever got fired for recommending IB^H^HMicrosoft.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Actually the majority, or rather plurality at this point, do use 7 now. It has overtaken XP. It is enough (when combined with Vista which quite a few people do use) that some games are now coming out that require DirectX 10, which is Vista and 7 only.
But yes, the adoption of Windows 8 will be slow. Even if it is an amazing OS, people will upgrade slowly just because that's how people do things. Some don't like change, others see no reason to spend money if what they have now works. Still others just don't do OS upgrades, a new OS comes with a new computer. Businesses need time to test things and get ready for new deployments.
It'll be several years before 8 (or its successors) form a majority of OSes used.
.NET obsolete? Next you'll be claiming Microsoft has abandoned Silverlight!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Slashdot just did a survey, that asked whether readers would recommend Slashdot to others. Here is a perfect example of why I answered No to that question, and would have picked Hell No if that option had been in the survey. An increase in job postings for .Net is newsworthy on a "news for nerds" site. Totally ignorant, misinformed, clueless, stupid, arrogant and worthless editorializing, in the article and the headline, is not at all news for nerds, nor is it stuff that matters. Not only is the commentary about Metro completely wrong, so is the "home for newbies" slant. The linked article clearly indicates that more than 70% of resume searches in .Net are for developers with at least four years of experience. Obviously it's impossible to have four years experience with Metro, but it is entirely possible to have been using .Net for a decade now. The article has no mention at all of Metro. The article also mentioned an utterly ignorant, untrue, trite fear of .Net developers: that their skills do not carry over to other platforms. I guess this means a lot of fearful .Net developer who have never heard of Java? Where does Slashdot get the editors to approve this kind of junk?
Microsoft has collected data that shows people are using the start menu less and less.
Microsoft is misunderstanding this data point. Just because people are using it less doesn't statistically say that it's less useful to them. It simply means that between the start menu, the quick launch/taskbar, and the desktop (barring people like me who use Stardock Objectdock, Launchy, or other third party add-ons), the start menu is the least used. However, it doesn't indicate how useful it is to them once it is opened. Also, Microsoft's stat gathering habits are opt-in, which usually precludes power users and corporate installations.
The best car analogy I could come up with is this: I live in New York, which means that we get decent amounts of snow each winter. if Volvo were to take usage statistics of my car in the summer and indicate that that the traction control was only enabled 30 trips out of the 1,000 or so trips I make with that car in a year, it doesn't indicate that traction control isn't valuable. I remember at least twice when the traction control saved me from an accident, so by any REAL metric it's incredibly useful, despite being a statistical anomaly.
Microsoft has already lost the tablet market. And .NET is already a dying platform. Microsoft itself does not eat its own dog food. None of Microsoft's own products are written in .NET. Neither Windows nor Office were ever written in .NET. If Dice shows a 25% increase in .NET ads, that's because the economy is coming back and it does not imply some incremental improvement for .NET.
The full .Net framework is technically available. By default only a subset of is exposed to Metro-style apps because Metro is sandboxed, and the excluded APIs could potentially be used to subvert the sandbox. It is not difficult to use the full .Net API from Metro-style apps, but if you do that, your app will be summarily rejected from the Windows app store for using unauthorized APIs.
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Bullshit. The Java world is so huge and is much more than just the language. Java is surrounded by a sea of open-source technologies such as Spring and Hibernate and all the other things you need to know to succeed. Also, if all you have on your resume is C pound, nobody is going to consider you for a Java job.
The demand for .NET programmers is to fill the vacancies created by the previous group having seen the light and fled.
Dice.com posts ads for positions that companies are having trouble filling.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why in your right mind would be using any of these?
Either that or there is a mass defection of programmers from dot net to other platforms that are viewed as having more of a future.
There are a lot of possible reasons for the influx of ads for a skilled position. Some of them indicating a healthy platform, some of them not.
Work bio at MMWD
Look, isn't it obvious that .NET is simply transitioning from early mainstream to late mainstream? You can only conceivably call it a "dying" platform if your perspective is 100% early adopter, which is 100% not the perspective of business customers.
This isn't insightful. It's plain wrong. As someone who attended the Build conference and spoke directly with several Microsoft program managers, I can attest that Metro/WinRT is not a replacement for .NET. I asked several times something like "But can I do Q in the sandbox?" and they would say "No, in that case use regular .NET to do Q and distribute your apps through traditional channels (or link to the installer in the app store)." I never got the impression that Metro was always the preferred approach, just the preferred approach for slate devices.
I don't know what Microsoft wants to do in the future past Windows 8. Maybe you're right, and Microsoft wants to give up their stronghold on enterprise applications that have certain hardware or interoperability requirements not allowed by Metro, so that they get control over tablet apps. But I'm not betting the bank on that.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
"Neither Windows nor Office were ever written in .NET" -- Yes, because the Windows, Development Tools, and Office teams are separate entities and none of them wants to restart from scratch. But new applications for Windows are another story. You can developn C++, C#, and very soon in... Javascript. :)
None of Microsoft's own products are written in .NET.
Visual Studio is.
None of Microsoft's own products are written in .NET.
Most Microsoft development tools are written partially or wholly in .NET (guess what I do for a living...).
FWIW, Windows itself has bits and pieces written in .NET as well. Nothing major, but it's there.
Sharepoint, Visual Studio, Expression suite, the Tablet API, the Surface platform, Silverlight, many of the Windows 'Live' applications, and the XNA game framework are all written with .NET