Yes, that would have been appropriate as woolvalley specifically brought up Microsoft, and your reply talked a lot about Microsoft's source available release as if it were meaningful counter-example to woolvalley's reference to "closed source."
You wondered why you got downvotes? That's why.
I have no dog in this race.
If you "personally do agree" then why do you bring up an argument that you disagree with, in order to justify your views? It comes across as if you are making the argument to win some sort of rhetorical point, where the end - your advocacy of C# - justifies any tactic.
I do not care to follow up on this discussion any longer.
Mono is a product of the open source nature of C#, not the cause. In general, I think its wise to go as close to the 'first party reason' as possible. But the nuance there makes it surprisingly intricate, and nuance is often lost in online discussion...
As for '4 years being a long time in software', there's a difference between considering the industry at large, and individual experience. I, like everybody, have anecdotal experience and opinions that run contrary to the norm. And in this case my personal view is that 4 years is not really a long time in terms of software, yet for the industry and people as a whole, I think that couldn't be further from the average truth.
You wondered why you got downvotes? That's why.
I have no dog in this race.
If you "personally do agree" then why do you bring up an argument that you disagree with, in order to justify your views? It comes across as if you are making the argument to win some sort of rhetorical point, where the end - your advocacy of C# - justifies any tactic.
I do not care to follow up on this discussion any longer.