Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bct 6668 days ago
> the article did make me wonder if most developers view .net developers as lesser developers because of their chosen toolset.

At least part of it is that in many cases it's not their chosen toolset; it's what they were given.

> From a knowledge point of view .net requries a lot more traditional programming skills than ruby ever does.

How so?
1 comments
DarrenStuart 6668 days ago
> At least part of it is that in many cases it's not their chosen toolset; it's what they were given.

read my post I already said that.

> How so? You can figure this out yourself by comparing C# to ruby

link
jcl 6668 days ago
You can figure this out yourself by comparing C# to ruby

I was hoping for more specific examples, as I gathered the parent was. It's still not clear to me what "more traditional programming skills" means, or why it's a good thing, or why (C# - Ruby) yields traditional programming, while (Ruby - C#) should be... non-traditional programming?

link
DarrenStuart 6668 days ago
Its an untyped, interpreted and does not have any heritage with the likes of C or even basic.

I guess it's heritage is smalltalk which I did enjoy when I studied.

Don't get me wrong it has its place but I think of it as a language that is like basic used to be. extremely easy to program in but if you learn just ruby you would have a hard time jumping to another programming langunage than if you had come from C#, C/C++ etc

no flames please :p

link