.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.
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
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?
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.
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