[pjmlp]

Naturally I am comparing all levels of the stack, as I mention on my comment a language alone is useless.

Yes, the future is .NET Core, however pretending that outside Windows it can match Java offerings just reveals a complete lack of knowledge of all kinds of platforms that have Java support available for them.

Guys like PTC, Aicas, Gemalto, microEJ doing embedded real time Java, selling M2M devices, IBM and Unisys mainframes, 80% of the mobile world (even if it is an adulterated flavour of coffee), smartcards, blue ray players, healthcare and TV settop boxes, kiosks and plenty of other use cases.

.NET is catching up with 25 years of Java doing cross platform development, while anything that came out of Redmond has been mostly Windows only for 20 years.

.NET Core only supports the three major mainstream OSes, zero support for anything else, and has the growing pains of a platform where plenty of third parties are yet to release anything on Core.

Sitecore just released their first version on .NET Core earlier this month, and I don't see anyone rushing to upgrade.

Doing WPF, Forms? Good luck with many GUI component libraries.

Apparently the designers are going to miss .NET 5 for full stability.

The beautiful thing with being a polyglot consultant is that I don't have to convince myself that I am using the best stuff as "Developer X", I just use whatever stack the customer asks for and then move on.

[BoorishBears]

> Yes, the future is .NET Core, however pretending that outside Windows it can match Java offerings just reveals a complete lack of knowledge of all kinds of platforms that have Java support available for them.

I have no idea what on earth you're on about... you didn't bring up anything I didn't know as far as places where various JVMs live.

This just reads like another distraction from the topic of language direction just like your last comment trying to confuse web frameworks and language runtimes...

Why is .NET Core supposed to be blindly chase platform parity with JVM down, especially down to embedded devices?

You realize the JVMs used on embedded devices aren't the same ones used on desktop right?

Like there are C# frameworks for embedded development on microcontrollers, why on earth would that be .NET Core's domain? Do you think HotspotVM is running on those smartcard microcontrollers?

-

Your entire comment you seem to be under the impression .NET Core exists to be a drop-in replacement for the JVM for every usage.

Which is especially strange because you're using JVM as a generic term for every JVM in parts of your comment, which would maybe be comparable to the CLR at best (but still be an odd comparison to make)

If anything you're speaking to the strength of C# and a product like .NET Core, they're not chasing the same goals that skewered the development pace of Java.

The C# team is not worried that their language standard changes might be hard on people embedded runtimes in smart cards or 25 year old binary only jars

The same mentality is why C# paid the price to break backwards compatibility on generics back in the 2.0 days, and enjoyed a much more powerful implementation going forward in perpetuity.

You're free to feel one approach is better than the other, but it's non-sequitur at best (and disingenuous at worst) to start spouting off about how the JVM runs on smartcards and so that means .NET Core is supposed to be matching that in a conversation about language growth...

[pjmlp]

Sure it does, because what is relevant are ecosystems, not language grammars.

Yes, C# the language is better designed than Java the language, while .NET the ecosystem is is tiny spot of Java the ecosystem.

When I mention JVM, I mean any implementation, I don't mix Java with Hotspot.

And yes PTC and Aicas sell full Java SE compliant implementations for embedded development.

The only embedded options for .NET are Netduino, hardly market relevant, and Wilderness Labs, which doesn't cover at all the kind of industrial deployments PTC, Aicas, microEJ and Gemalto are doing.

I work with Java and .NET alongside each other since they exist, so I know pretty well the pros and cons of each platform, specifically outside the implementations that people mix with the language.

[GordonS]

> .NET Core only supports the three major mainstream OSes, zero support for anything else

This is true, but this level is support for the majority of use cases. I do personally find it very annoying that refuse to support 32-bit Linux tho.

> has the growing pains of a platform where plenty of third parties are yet to release anything on Core

This was true a few years ago, but certainly isn't now. I honestly can't even remember when I last tried to use a library that didn't have dotnet Core support.

[pjmlp]

I can give you several examples, you can start with Sitecore and SharePoint.

[GordonS]

I don't doubt there are examples, but they are surely in the minority nowadays.

Also worth noting that anything built for dotnet framework 4.6.2+ (4.6.2 was released in 2016) will run just fine under Core CLR.

[pjmlp]

No it won't, because .NET Core doesn't support everything from .NET Framework, like WCF server happily running on 4.7.2.

Here is another example, Oracle drivers for .NET Core only support a subset of their capabilities on Core.

I can keep feeding examples of stuff that is actually relevant for Fortune 500's, which Microsoft keeps out of their .NET Core marketing or just hand waves as yet another porting effort, as if we didn't had better ways to spend our money.

[BoorishBears]

You can keep feeding off examples of the subset of Fortune 500s that refuse to compete for top talent in the wider market and instead try and keep zombie projects shuffling because of their mismanagement using contractors and outsourced labor... they also tend to have the kind of engineering culture that pushes away innovators, treats development as a cost center, and generally avoid investment in any sort of long term growth of their talent...

But yeah, why compete with the rest of the Fortune 500 that hire top talent to build out new systems...

when you can pay a "fixer" who prides themselves on self-flagellation keeping legacy systems with no source targeting platforms designed for computing as it existed decades ago (that only exist because of gross mismanagement and a general view of development as a cost center)?

What's interesting to me is someone would actually try to hold this up this dance as something the rest of the tech industry should aspire to uphold lol. Maybe because it makes for less "war stories" deep in the bowels of decade old systems with no documentation successfully migrated to the latest Jenga block in their leaning towers?

Imagine if other fields worked like this

"Our materials science company prides itself on only releasing plastics that can be molded using what was state of the art 20 years ago"

"Our competitor Macrohard insists on occasionally releasing new plastics that are stronger and cheaper to develop with, but we cater to those shops that refuse to invest in techs who know newer processes!"