[Locke1689]

...I'm not saying that we didn't land on the moon, I'm just saying it's interesting to wonder if it really happened.

But you're absolutely right -- I'm glad I know now that I'm working on a new C# compiler for a dead language that no one uses.

Oh, and by "us" I meant HN. If you haven't noticed, I've been part of this community for quite a while.

Edit: This comment is maybe snarkier then I meant it. Add an eye roll or two and you'll get the gist.

[pyre]

  > ...I'm not saying that we didn't land on the moon,
  > I'm just saying it's interesting to wonder if it
  > really happened.

I don't think that conflating speculation with conspiracy theories is necessarily productive. It's not like Microsoft doesn't have a track record of abandoning partners in the past[1] (e.g. Plays 4 Sure).

  > If you haven't noticed, I've been part of this
  > community for quite a while.

I'm not sure that 'pulling rank' is necessarily constructive either. It just reminds me of those Slashdot threads where people with increasing smaller UIDs would reply with, "You must be new here," or "get off my lawn."

[1] Though I agree that completely abandoning C# would be suicide in the enterprise market.

[Locke1689]

I don't think that conflating speculation with conspiracy theories is necessarily productive. It's not like Microsoft doesn't have a track record of abandoning partners in the past[1] (e.g. Plays 4 Sure).

Conspiracy theories are just speculation too. One could argue that the US government has a history of all kinds of activities and thus many of the current conspiracies are in keeping with history. The essence of a conspiracy theory is speculation not grounded in evidence or probability.

I'm not sure that 'pulling rank' is necessarily constructive either. It just reminds me of those Slashdot threads where people with increasing smaller UIDs would reply with, "You must be new here," or "get off my lawn."

My comment was directed quite clearly at the insinuation that I was speaking on behalf of Microsoft, which I do not do.

I may have been snarky, but only because I see this quite a lot on HN -- that people are the company they work for. We're just members of this community like any other.

[ryanmolden]

This. It is unbelievable the number of times where people will say something like "I understand why you feel that way..." (if I am say arguing in favor of some MS product/decision) as if, because I work for Microsoft, I must be some non-thinking shill or purveyor of FUD. It is unfortunate because it prevents me from even wanting to participate in any conversation here involving any tech company because everything I say is apparently interpreted through the lens of my employer, because clearly people are that one-dimensional :)

[pyre]

Microsoft seems to be focused on Metro as the way forward. I don't think it's that much of a stretch that they might be pushing JavaScript to the fore-front of their development strategy while starting to side-line C#. I could draw parallels to Apple's sidelining of the Carbon API in favor of their Cocoa API. IIRC, Photoshop is still using the Carbon, even though the majority of development now is in Cocoa.

Granted, I don't follow the Microsoft development community closely, so there may be something that I'm missing out on, but I don't see it to be as 'out there' as claiming vast conspiracy theories surrounding historical events.

[contextfree]

Focusing on WinRT as the way forward != pushing Javascript to the forefront and sidelining C#

[pyre]

I didn't say that one implied the other. Just that it didn't seem as 'out there' as moon landing or holocaust deniers.

[contextfree]

Right, the "conspiracy theory" phrase is weird (what is the conspiracy supposed to be?)

[mpyne]

No offense but you're reading waaay more into it than what they wrote. "Difference in strategic position" doesn't equate to "dead language that no one uses" and a question into the departure of a high-profile MS exec doesn't rise to the level of moon landing lunacy. Unless you have some sort of inside knowledge about what the parent comment to yours actually meant I can only assume that this discussion in general is hitting too close to home for complete objectivity on your part.

I also don't think that being signed up for a site for a longer duration of time inherently gives you any right to speak for the entire site, even in a conversation with one of relatively less "seniority" on the site (whatever that even means). It's nice that you clarified what you meant by "us" but that wasn't being debated and it didn't add to any points you've made.

[ericlippert]

I am neither high-profile nor an executive.

[ryanmolden]

You're definitely high-profile amongst the engineer grunts and on various internal mailing lists. I don't know if that wins you any private soirées with Soma or not, but it's something :)

[mpyne]

Much like the other commenters have mentioned, you're "high profile" if only because I've actually heard of you and read your writings with interest before (via the same means legions of other developers will have done so). I'll remove "exec" if I still have Edit perms though, apologies.

[sageikosa]

I've heard of you, and I'm usually the last to the party.

[RyJones]

You're a fucking hero to some of us.

[mythz]

.NET Champion perhaps? :)