A primer on why the chronic suffering of the VB.NET community is neither necessary nor a matter of expense or practicality
-
Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages
How to create (or destroy) a dev community
And even if VB isn't your favourite language, I think it's still a great read as it applies to other "off the narrow path" technologies and languages that may fall off the support trains.
-
Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages
How to create (or destroy) a dev community
And even if VB isn't your favourite language, I think it's still a great read as it applies to other "off the narrow path" technologies and languages that may fall off the support trains.
How he managed to write that without swearing is beyond me.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages
How to create (or destroy) a dev community
And even if VB isn't your favourite language, I think it's still a great read as it applies to other "off the narrow path" technologies and languages that may fall off the support trains.
Quote:
it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages
I guess this is the reason why F# will never be as big for .NET community as Scala for Java community.
-
Quote:
it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages
I guess this is the reason why F# will never be as big for .NET community as Scala for Java community.
Isn't the author saying this is a faulty assumption? > Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages (ignoring the fact that they actually make three); it would take an army of developers and content writers at great expense nearly duplicating all effort across the ecosystem at worst or perhaps 10-30% of the (Developer Tools) division resources at best. Today I want to put that misconception to rest. If I understand correctly, the author is arguing precisely that it is not too expensive or impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages, or even three .NET languages. If there was enough interest in F#, Microsoft could make it as big as Scala.
-
Isn't the author saying this is a faulty assumption? > Time and time again I see the discussion of Microsoft’s level of investment in VB.NET framed around the same faulty assumption: it’s just too darned expensive and impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages (ignoring the fact that they actually make three); it would take an army of developers and content writers at great expense nearly duplicating all effort across the ecosystem at worst or perhaps 10-30% of the (Developer Tools) division resources at best. Today I want to put that misconception to rest. If I understand correctly, the author is arguing precisely that it is not too expensive or impractical for Microsoft to support two .NET languages, or even three .NET languages. If there was enough interest in F#, Microsoft could make it as big as Scala.
I think you've understood it correctly. Just in case I was not challenging the faultiness of this assumption anywhere in my post. Just ranting a bit that F# is underestimated too :)