except that C# as a language is by leaps and bounds better than Java (both in syntax and useful features departments), so there have been other problems to solve, too.
Its ecosystem isn’t. C# will never get accepted as an open source product. It only has open source code, it’s not actually ‘open-source.’ Compare it with Typescript, which—despite originating from Microsoft—is a truly open project, and getting love left and right.
C# might be better than Java/JVM, but it’s not better enough. The culture/ecosystem barrier is so high that C# would have to be miles ahead, technically superior in every way, to overcome it. I do hate the “worse is better” adage, but there’s no mistaking it, it applies here.
It’s just too little, too late.
But Typescript is awesome, keep it up.
Ironically, Google’s competitor (Closure Compiler) has actually been unsuccessful for similar reasons. To this date its main repo is just a clone of the internal master. For whatever reason they’ve never attempted to rebase on open-source release.
So it's maintained in the open on GitHub, it's technically open source in terms of licensing. Yet you claim it's not really open source. Care to clarify?
It’s technically open-source, that’s the point. There’s more to open-source than license. Sorry but there’s no way for me to clarify without just repeating my original comment.
> It’s technically open-source, that’s the point. There’s more to open-source than license. Sorry but there’s no way for me to clarify without just repeating my original comment.
It's free software, and in that sense the license is the only thing that really matters. However, if you're discussing open collaboration styles then that's a whole different discussion. Either your project is free software or it isn't. Whether it has a diverse and open development community is a separate problem, and doesn't fall under "is this project [free software]".
Such as? You seem to have a mental model of things that make a project objectively open source, that don't include the license. I'd be curious what those things are.
I really don’t, it’s more of a feeling. With an open-source release like .NET it seems more like better documentation. In fact that was the case for early commercial Unixes—you needed the source code to actually use the system, but it wasn’t open-source.
Open-source as-documentation (for lack of better term) is still useful. It makes bug fixing a whole lot easier, for one thing. But it’s not quite the same as open-source ecosystem. For that you need to have a diverse set of actors, sharing the same goal. That’s what I think successful open-source project makes. You need to accept the fact that the project is not just yours. Something like that.
Of course Microsoft could do all those things. Who knows, it they’re determined enough they might turn it around. The problem here is like I said Java is just good enough. No one really cares, except people that could use some better documentation, that have been already invested in the ecosystem. That’s why open-sourcing is still valuable, but also why they’ll never gain any adoption of the kind they’d need.
Sorry if that sounds like rambling, it’s sort of late.
They might be open, but there’s democracy and then there’s democracy. See for example recent MSBuild incident (but don’t try to argue about it it’s just an example).
As I said, it’s a feeling. The feeling is it’s Microsoft’s project, everyone else is along for a ride. And that’s fine, but it’s something different. Let’s just not pretend technical merits drive adoption, that’s rarely true.
> They might be open, but there’s democracy and then there’s democracy. See for example recent MSBuild incident (but don’t try to argue about it it’s just an example).
> As I said, it’s a feeling. The feeling is it’s Microsoft’s project, everyone else is along for a ride. And that’s fine, but it’s something different. Let’s just not pretend technical merits drive adoption, that’s rarely true.
Uhm. So many free software projects work like that. A company creates something, releases it as free software. Yes, people contribute (and that's awesome by the way) but in general all of the engineering talent works at the company because they wrote it in the first place (and they hire contributors). At SUSE this is how YaST, zypper, spacewalk, et al development works (with significant contributions from the openSUSE community, but we have teams of people working on those projects so our contributions are more of a concentrated effort). There's nothing new or different about this model of free software development (Sun did the same thing with OpenSolaris and Joyent does the same thing with SmartOS). Yes, GNU and Linux follow the hobbyist model but that's not how all projects work.
i have a hard time with this argument. on one hand what you say is true: C# is a strictly smaller community than java. OTOH that's true of pretty much any language, and yet python, ruby, elixir, swift, golang, etc. communities are healthy and vibrant.
if what you really mean is 'java people won't switch to C# anyway', then i agree, but C# isn't a really a language for them. it's a language for people who don't like and/or aren't forced to use java by their employers.
People who aren’t forced to use Java will choose Scala or other JVM langs, like Kotlin, Ceylon (a favorite of mine) or even Clojure.
C# the language is not exactly that exciting. I get it, it looks attractive next to Java, but it’s still a verbose, corporate-first, sort of thing. If anything, F# is much more competitive. Too bad it’s on CLR.
This has already devolved into opinion territory but I don't think you're giving C# enough credit.
I picked up F# relatively early in it's lifetime (2006ish?), back then there were many language features in F# that you just couldn't do in C#. The gap closed a lot when C# got LINQ, generics, and lambda/first-class functions (these are relatively old language features by now).
If I want to write in an quasi-functional-programming language style I can do it without having the language get in my way. I certainly wouldn't call it a "verbose, corporate-first" language, although the fact that it can be used for that is a bonus.
Don’t forget Rx. Not exactly language feature, but certainly a great contribution to come out of C#/.NET. And who knows if it would have happened without LINQ.
I like the language. Just not enough to use it over JVM. And I think most people feel the same way.
The problem with native desktop Java applications that although Swing is quite powerful, it requires developers to go through books like "Filthy Rich Clients"[0] to really take advantage of it. Which very few do.
To this day I still meet developers that aren't aware how to change the default L&F to native widgets, for example.
Whereas Windows Forms and WPF already provide a much easier out of the box experience, and have tooling like Blend available.
I am curious what the JavaFX sessions at JavaONE will cover.
Sure, it beats Java, but the VM is worse for running other languages, and that's where .NET loses. F# tries to be nice, but reified generics are more of a limitation than help in that world.
In JVM land, now Java just hands you some specific well tested libraries: You write business code with Scala or Clojure, which I'd pick over C# by about as much as I'd pick C# over Java 7.
That said, I have far more faith in Microsoft improving their tooling than I have about Oracle doing the same: It's just that Oracle has to carry a far smaller weight, because the good JVM languages aren't even theirs.
Uhm, the CLR (hence the name) was specifically designed to host different languages that can interoperate with each other and unlike the JVM was not built around the capabilities and limitations of a single language.
