[zastrowm]

This surprised me:

> It was only through the total dedication of Microsoft Research, Cambridge during 1998-2004, to doing a complete, high quality implementation in both the CLR (including NGEN, debugging, JIT, AppDomains, concurrent loading and many other aspects), and the C# compiler, that the project proceeded.

I didn't realize that it was less a "must-have" and more of a "research and if-possible" task. I wonder how the .NET framework/languages would have changed if they went with type erasure. Would we even still talking about .NET today?

[nikanj]

We're still talking about Java, which does type erasure. Oracle has really been phoning it in for many years, and despite that the platform is still going strong. Killing large, entrenched platforms is not easy.

Windows remains 800lb gorilla on the desktop, and C# is Microsoft's recommended environment on it. It's hardly surprising that .NET remains relevant.

[nathanaldensr]

I've been working with .NET since it was in beta in 2001, and I've never considered .NET's strength to be its desktop story. .NET (and now .NET Core) are awesome because of C# and the BCL's generally excellent design. .NET is an excellent choice for building server-side applications of all kinds. .NET Core removed that last complaint I had about .NET: it wasn't cross-platform.

It's a great time to be a .NET developer.

[zamalek]

.Net is also well designed. Some of the most subtle design choices drastically exaggerate poor choices in other languages - one example that has always stuck with me is how well C# namespaces are designed. Not only because they are frictionless, but also because of the lack of global namespace types in the standard library. It's a tiny detail, but .Net is just that: hundreds of well-executed small details.

[eldavido]

I think the only way you get this is having someone very, very experienced leading the project. MS had Anders Hejlsberg, who hasn't done much in life, except leading the Turbo Pascal and Delphi efforts, two of the most successful rapid app design languages of the 90s (note: heavy sarcasm in last sentence)

I'm not one bit surprised this is the the guy leading the C# effort's second or third language.

[guelo]

I disagree with you about namespaces. I find Java's packages more useful since they give you access control which increases encapsulation. If I want a factory method guarding the instantiation of a class in java I can make the factory public and the class package private. In C# the only answer for this type of encapsulation are assemblies but they're much heavier weight and it is recommended not to have too many of them in a project.

[BitterAmethyst]

You can make the constructors on the class private and have a public static method on the class that does the instantiation.

[guelo]

For the simple case yes. But if you want several classes cooperating, maybe helpers or related data classes, your options are assemblies or like you said to shove everything into one giant class. You have less flexibility of separating things out.

[cm2187]

On large platforms, I am going to piss off people but I'll do it anyway. It's not because a language is widely used that it is a well designed language. Javascript, VBA and php immediatly come to my mind. There are many other reasons for a language to be a heavy weight other than its own merit.

[eldavido]

This reminds me of Peter Lynch's comment about the stock market: "a voting machine in the short term, but a weighing machine in the long term".

In the short-term, languages with good developer outreach and other factors win. But you don't get things like generics or the .NET TPL without some serious long-term vision. I really do believe well-designed languages win over a long enough timescale.

[candiodari]

There are many metrics to judge a programming language by, and even different "axes". Going from theoretical correctness, consistency, type system soundness all the way to ease of development, "batteries included", empowerment, developer productivity (on small and very large programs, as that is not the same), and more recently "forcing" good practices.

Even popularity is a value, as it automatically provides a community, but it's also a pitfall, as massive popularity inevitably means the average programmer of language X becomes as smart, careful and reliable as the average programmer irrespective of language. And, to put it mildly, that's not a positive evolution. That, above all others, was VB and Delphi's downfall.

On three axes, I would argue VB, Javascript and Delphi did/do incredibly well: ease of development (of small-ish programs), and the deployment story, as well as the empowerment they provided.

On things like consistency, developer productivity, batteries included (Delphi was better on the batteries included front), type system soundness, ... they were somewhat sub-par.

It's just what people value at the time. And of course, it is critical during a career in development to distinguish yourself from the average programmer.

[zastrowm]

Yeah, but I wonder if .NET wouldn't have succeeded until .NET Core without generics as a distinguishing feature. I feel like generics + some of the features built on them (LINQ+TPL+etc.) is what let .NET/C# stand apart from Java.

I'm not necessarily saying it would have failed, but I do wonder :: )

[tatersolid]

C# succeeded based on the strength of Visual Studio.

Sure, the language being nicely designed and having some code translation tools helped people switch from VB.

But C# being the “best supported” language in Visual Studio. The productivity gains for developers were too real to ignore, managers saw it, and bought into the Visual Studio ecosystem en masse.

[ragebol]

In turn, Visual Studio has great support for C# because of the C#'s great type system.