Interesting how the post completely ignores the quality of the language. Most people I know don't use C# for the same reason they don't use Java: Because it's often feels bloated, over-engineered and too verbose for building stuff fast. It has nothing to do with Microsoft, Azure or scaling, they just prefer whatever dynamic language they're comfortable with.
I've only ever heard good things about C#. I believe C# has first class anonymous functions, makes async operations easy, and a combination of VisualStudio and JetBrains resharper you have a pretty amazing development environment. I haven't programmed much with C#, but like I said I've only heard good things.
C# is a fine option if your choices are C# or Java. On the other hand, F# is safer and 3 times more concise language that can do everything C# can It interops perfectly with any C#/VB.NET libraries. I'd think long and hard when writing any new C# code, and defend why you need to reduce your possible solutions to only those C# supports, when you could have the ability to do everything C# does and more with F#.
For me personally, conciseness of F#, it's tendency to use short words, cram things together and overload operators actually make it less readable. I like many of the features F# has and am happy to see how they are slowly migrating to C#.
If you want to get paid...use C#, if you want to get paid less...use vb.net, if you want to be right use F#. This is outside of the startup discussion here...but it is the general rule for MS developers. All three languages are comparable to the junior to mid level dev.
I can see people having reservations about C# for many reasons - mainly as to how closely it is tied to Microsoft and to Windows (yes, I know it is cross platform, but the focus of the eco-system in very much on Windows) - but I can't see the quality of the design of the language being much cause for concern. Personally, I think it's one of the nicer languages in that particular space at the moment - certainly much nicer than Java.
"I know it is cross platform, but the focus of the eco-system in very much on Windows."
There's a funny thing about its cross-platform nature: You almost never see C# apps on other platforms. Why is that? There must be thousands of useful C#/.Net applications made that other platforms could benefit from, but the ONLY ones I've seen are the ones that targeted Mono to begin with. Nothing else.
> There's a funny thing about its cross-platform nature: You almost never see C# apps on other platforms. Why is that? There must be thousands of useful C#/.Net applications made that other platforms could benefit from
I'm not sure that that's actually the case. C# has never caught on in a big way for consumer desktop development; the bulk of that still seems to be C++ and Win32/Win32 wrapper. It's used for _enterprise_ desktop development, of course, but people are less excited about porting that.
I think its simple. Unless the person is interested in Mono they don't develop for it and don't have any interest in supporting it.
Many people use C# to develop applications for Windows and don't, won't or can't support other environments....
And while there are thousand of useful C# programs I doubt many don't have direct python / Linux competitors readily available that do near enough the same thing.
a) I can't imagine somebody bothering to support .net software on the Linux desktop without being paid for it. I know those guys[1] are a minority, but it takes only a minority to create an absolutely toxic atmosphere. Maintaining a end user product can lead to frustrating interactions, and it doesn't really help if your choice of technology means that there exists a significant number of people who literally want you, your spouse, your three year old daughter and the family dog to die in a fucking fire.
b) Mono was always a bad choice for asp.net, which means that the software people are actually paid for doesn't run well on Linux. That was mostly a problem outside of xamarins control, and I hope it becomes better not that the devdiv MS seems to be somewhat committed to work together to make it truly interoperable.
"I think its simple. Unless the person is interested in Mono they don't develop for it and don't have any interest in supporting it."
But why wouldn't someone who IS interested in running the application on Linux simply do the last bits to get it to other platforms? I have NEVER seen that happen.
"And while there are thousand of useful C# programs I doubt many don't have direct python / Linux competitors readily available that do near enough the same thing."
Sure, but I refuse to believe all the competitors are always doing a better job. There should be at least some application that found their way over to for example Linux.
I've been kind of avoiding mobile development after getting my fingers slightly singed by spending too much time with jQuery Mobile before giving up - the one thing that tempts me to try doing some mobile development is the Xamarin tool set.
That's the thing. If you're adamant on a dynamic language you won't even be looking at C# or Java. It has nothing to do with the quality of the language, but the choice of programming paradigm.
Both C# and Java are quality languages. Given the choice between the two, I choose C# anyday. Sadly, this means Visual Studio... Resharper makes this slightly more tolerable.
C# I can handle (despite coming to it late, as part of Unity3D), but I find Java more and more frustrating to work with.
To be honest, I think I'm just using it for the wrong thing - I don't tend to work on big, collaborative projects which is where Java really shines. Meanwhile, C# has a few conveniences (such as LINQ and rectangular arrays, off the top of my head) which seem to me to make scripting and small projects easier.
> What aspects of C# makes working on large collaborative projects difficult?
None. I was just talking about my issues with using Java for small projects, not using C# for large projects. My argument is that C# covers scripting and small utility programs adequately, while Java seems to require more boilerplate.
C# would be my natural choice for projects large or small.
I really feel like your idea of C# is based on C# 1. It's at version 5 now, and many modern C# codebases are hardly more verbose than Ruby. Still slightly more verbose, because types, but it's really incomparable to Java these days.
I think it's just a matter of being used to it. I use c# with MVC on a daily basis and starting up for me it's extremely easy. If I use Rails or anything else that people consider fast or w/e, I find myself extremely awkward. I can do it, but it takes ages to setup and everything. Instead of just going to IIS creating the website and creating the project in VS, that btw is the best IDE I have ever used and it's almost impossible for me to use anything else.
> ignores the quality of the language ... just prefer whatever dynamic language they're comfortable with.
"quality of the language" is not the same as the "dynamic" vs the "statically typed", "strongly typed" or "compiled" nature of the language.
Strongly typed languages have definite advantages because of the type guarantees that they provide in any successfully successfully compiling program. They have disadvantages too as you mention.
Nevertheless, many people feel strongly that where a strongly typed, statically typed, compiled language is available (i.e. not in a browser) it is an advantage to use it. And compared to java, c# generally is more terse and expressive.
"Quality" is subjective depending on what you value. If you only hang with dynamic language people then yes, c# and java are not of interest to you. Don't mistake that for a quality issue, or a universally held opinion; it is a design goal and design philosophy issue.
