[deet]

Indeed. And it's very possible that the .NET OSS ecosystem will grow dramatically soon, once its core components, compilers, and build tools finish being open sourced and become stable on non-Windows platforms.

The article accused people using .NET of not choosing to work on hard problems. I suspect that's it's the other way around. People working on hard problems have chosen other tools that they felt were more appropriate or effective at the time.

For example, if people doing hard things felt that a Linux hosting environment was most suitable for their solving hard problem, that basically ruled out .NET. Once .NET applications can be safely, reliably run on Linux, the case for using .NET becomes much stronger.

[Gibbon1]

I've rolled this around a bit and have come down on the side that there are two factors at work.

1. Just plain Microsoft Hate. Couple of times someones asked me about what language to use for some GUI that messes with a database and does some other thing, running on Windows and 'maybe Linux' I tell them that C#/.net was made for that kind of thing. And they recoil in horror as if they just realized that I'm Satan. Then they go off and mess around with QT/C++ for a week before giving up.

2. C# has good inter-op with C/C++ libraries. So if there is an open source widget in C/C++ you need you can usually just build it as a dll with some wrapper magic and reference those in your project.

[fr0styMatt2]

I think the status of the development tools has/had a lot to do with it. As a .NET developer, it's always been unclear until a few years ago as to how you could get the free tools and what you could do with them.

I'm specifically talking about Visual Studio here.

So there was always this perceived barrier to entry, even if it wasn't true -- for example with C++ I know I can just grab a linux box and have gcc and use it. With .NET, until recently it was -- pay for Visual Studio? Use the free version but it's only an express version so can I use it commercially? Use MonoDevelop which is alright but doesn't feel quite as nice under Windows?

Now that we have an official toolset on Linux and the licensing behind Visual Studio seems a hell of a lot less confusing, I think we'll see the community grow.

There is also the hate thing; but I'd counter that with the observation that there's also a lot of Java-hate out there too. They aren't seen as "hacker's languages" but "ewww yuck big bank enterprise-y languages". So I don't know.

[cbd1984]

> They aren't seen as "hacker's languages" but "ewww yuck big bank enterprise-y languages".

They're seen as "Languages this evil SOB of a company owns and who knows if it could decide to patent something and enforce it against me".

As in, patent law is complex. Guarantees sound more like marketing of the used-car-dealer and sawdust-transmission variety than actual known-good documents like the GPL, which is, after all, founded on copyright law. Copyright law seems simpler: You own specific files, not abstract hand-wavey ideas. You can't use copyright law to go after someone for the unforgivable sin of coming up with the same idea a bit after, or a bit before, you did.

(Edited to add: Before you accuse me of FUD, tell me how I could know I'm not spreading FUD without becoming an IP law expert first.)

So:

.Net is Microsoft's ecosystem.

Java is Oracle's ecosystem.

Which company is less likely to find a loophole in whatever guarantee they've pledged and use it to squash me like a gnat?

[fr0styMatt2]

I'd agree with this too; at least to an extent -- especially given Oracle's recent actions wrt. to Android/Java.

Now that you mention Intellectual Property, I wonder.... Does the fact that .NET is used in big enterprises and big enterprises tend to have strict employee side-work exclusion clauses or "we own everything you do" clauses also play a part in slowing down the .NET OSS ecosystem?