Previous Entry Share Next Entry
.NET, the career killer? Get real.
device
jducoeur
[This one is going to be seriously uninteresting to the non-programmers, but it attempts to be a helpful opinion about some misperceptions in the programming community.]

So wiglaf_aaronm brought to my attention last night the current tempest in a teapot: Expensify's little rant on why they don't hire .NET programmers. It is sufficiently full of nonsense that a corrective seems appropriate.

So let's talk a bit about environments. The software field is prone to religious wars, and the JVM-vs-CLR one is among the stupidest. Lest anyone peg me as a zealot on either side here, let me lay out my credentials.

On the one side, I was one of Java's earliest adopters: back in the Netscape/IE 3 days, when Java was new and shiny, I wrote what might have been the most sophisticated applet in the world at the time. (A locally-installing, auto-updating, multimedia, children's-educational MUD client written for the DoD. DARPA contracts produce the weirdest jobs.) I cut my OO eyeteeth on Java, to enough of a degree that learning C++ afterwards was kind of painful. When I ran my own garage startup a few years ago, the server was originally written in Java; when that became too annoying (I will admit, I consider Java the language to be behind the times), I stayed on the JVM but switched to Scala, the current Best Language In the World.

OTOH, I've spent the bulk of the past 10 years working in .NET. I taught myself C# for kicks during the nuclear winter of 2002 (my only period of real unemployment); that led me to working mostly in that for five years with Applied Messaging / Convoq / Zingdom, and thence here at Memento for the past couple of years.

So let's be clear: I know both sides of the fence *quite* well, and have worked in lots of languages, for a variety of projects, in both environments. And my summary is that anyone who gets deeply attached to one or the other as far better for development flatly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Going into some of the problems with the linked post:
  • I realized that he really had no idea what he was talking about when I got to, ".NET is a dandy language." In case anybody else is confused, .NET isn't a language, any more than the JVM is: it's an environment comprising a virtual machine, a pretty disparate family of compatible languages, and an enormous collection of libraries. In fact, while the details vary a bit, from the thousand-foot view it looks exactly like the JVM environment. It's just parallel evolution.

  • "Programming with .NET is like cooking in a McDonalds kitchen." This bit mostly confirms the above. In fact, programming in the .NET languages is so much like programming in the JVM languages as to make no difference. Sure, if all you're doing is programming in ASP.NET and VB, it hides all the interesting details -- just like programming in Rails or PHP does. There are lots of ecosystems, and you choose to program at the level that makes sense for your needs. Moreover, choosing to go with a low-level language when all you need for the problem at hand is a high-level one is just plain dumb, especially from a company POV: it winds up introducing more bugs, wastes programmer time, and makes the system less maintainable. Mind, I *prefer* to program in a more powerful system, but that's because I like the juicy problems -- when I'm building a complex and novel app for a million simultaneous users, I'm going to choose a powerful language. But my comic book database at home is just written in Rails; if I was doing it on .NET, I'd do it in Razor. Anything fancier than that is just wasting my time.

  • "Microsoft very intentionally (and very successfully) created .NET to be as different as possible from everything else out there" This shows a surprisingly obtuse misunderstanding of the history. The truth is quite the opposite: most of the .NET environment is very, very much *like* everything else out there. Microsoft deliberately chose to make it *separate* so that once you start building your app in .NET, it turns out to be dumb to use anything non-.NET for it, but "different"? Get real. C# is simply a version of Java that's done a better job of keeping up with the times. F# is mostly a port of OCaml. .NET itself may be separate libraries from the JVM's, but the concepts tend to be very, very similar, and most interesting third-party libraries have near-identical versions on both sides of the fence.

  • Oh, and the point of the whole thing? "If you ever want to work in a startup, avoid .NET. It does you no favors." Seriously, dude, both of my last two jobs, as an Architect at solid startups, I got *because* of my C# skills. While it's true that garage startups tend to avoid .NET because of the cost, ones that are well-funded from the beginning tend to love it. In particular, business-oriented startups -- often the ones that have the best odds of profitability, since they tend to have real business plans -- tend to be bullish on Microsoft. So it's true that .NET skills won't help you starve in a garret, but from a career POV it can really help you land a position with a startup whose options have a good chance of paying off. (And seriously, if you have the mind for it, learn both sides of the fence. What *is* foolish is deliberately limiting your options.)
Most importantly, the notion that learning on the .NET side is a career-killer is just arrant nonsense. The reality is that, while the fine details are different, the broad strokes of the .NET environment and the JVM ones are so similar that the skills are all trivially transportable. For purposes of hiring, I consider Java and C# skills to be largely interchangeable. Similarly, if I was looking for someone to program OCaml or Haskell or Scala, I'd consider F# experience to be directly applicable. And if I was just looking for lower-level Web programmers, ASP.NET skills port fairly smoothly to JSP or any other templating framework.

There *are* good reasons to steer clear of .NET, but they are more political than anything else. One can certainly dislike Microsoft's corporate policies (although by and large, they're mostly pretty ordinary these days). If you're fond of open-source, .NET is a mediocre option, although not as bad as it once was. If you're a small startup, MS can be an expensive choice, especially in your early days.

(ETA: I should underline this last. While .NET isn't nearly as different as the original post makes it sound, and while it does have hooks that allow you to work with most external systems, this *is* Microsoft we're talking about. The ecosystem is designed to always make it easier and more powerful to pick the MS option instead of the non-MS one whenever you're presented with a choice. So don't fool yourself: if your company starts sipping the Microsoft Kool-Aid, you're probably going to wind up drinking the whole pitcher. It's a perfectly good choice, but it *is* a choice, and the upfront costs are much high in general than those on the JVM infrastructure. Whether the long-term costs are higher is a whole 'nother argument unto itself, that I don't care to wade into -- there are too many dueling studies for me to pay much attention.)

But seriously: if you're making a career in programming, I recommend just ignoring the religious zealots on both sides of this idiotic war. The truth is that both .NET and the JVM are fine environments, with good language options and rich libraries, and the skills you learn on one side apply quite directly to the other. (And if you're on the business side, for heaven's sake don't pay attention to the religious argument: it injects arrant nonsense into what should be cool-headed decisions...)

  • 1
This is the Internet, you're not allowed to be reasonable and even-handed! Stop that immediately, you...you...you VI USER!!!

(Unless you're an Emacs user, in which case you should run M-x unreasonable-argument.)

M-x unreasonable-argument
I like that, If emacs doesn't have it someone should add it (Though it has been way too long since I have done emacs lisp to want to try).

Honestly I agree on not getting the JVM/.net war, the two seem pretty similar unless there is something specific you want on one side or the other. As in you like Scala more than F# vice versa.

Well, Scala and F# aren't directly comparable -- F# is a lot more like OCaml. Scala is trying to be a superset of all of the above, so it winds up with very different tradeoffs. (In general, I think Scala is the best language going for power users, but it can be intimidating as hell to novices. That's largely a pedagogical issue, but for the moment it's an important one.)

I am spending my time learning Erlang right now, but Scala is on my list to learn as well (as is Haskell). I have't taken much of a look at F#, though I did listen to the interview on SE Radio at some point. I do know that there has been some haskell -> F# influence, as Simon Payton Jones has an office 2 down from the guy in charge of F#.

BTW if you ever get a chance to listen to a talk by Simon Payton Jones he is an amazing speaker (and looks a lot like Michael Palin)

I have the O'Reilly Scala book, but have not spent much time with it yet. (The nice thing about being an O'Reilly author is I get free books)

Well, F# and Haskell are cousins -- they're both ML derivatives. Scala is as well, albeit to a lesser degree.

Didn't actually know O'Reilly had a book on Scala, but glad to hear it...

It has a Tapir on the cover:
http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596155964/

To be honest I'm just happy that there are suddenly so many options for functional programming!

My sense is that it's approaching steam-engine time for functional programming. It's taken decades to get there, but the scaling argument for it is sufficiently compelling that I expect the paradigm to continue to grow over the next ten years. I'll be genuinely surprised if the OO-functional hybrid isn't quite dominant in another decade's time -- that seems to be which way the wind is blowing...

I've had that thought as well. It seems like to do concurrency some sort of FP methodology is needed. Erlang of course does that, Haskell has all sorts of fun stuff going on in that world, and scala and clojure as well.

Now If I only had time to learn them all.

Oh I found this link: http://www.infoq.com/interviews/functional-langs

Its Joe Armstrong, Martin Odersky and Don Syme talking about Scala/Erlang and F# Thought you might like it

O'Reilly has books on Erlang, F#, Scala, and Haskell. The prags also have
books on Scala, Erlang and maybe F#.

My problem is that there are no good tech book stores here in Israel. But my editor at O'Reilly will send me any of their titles for free.

Well, technically, Haskell is an evolution of Miranda (which had much the same syntax, and basically co-eveolved alongside ML).

My main reaction is someone is trying to drive traffic to his blog by saying stupid stuff. So I'm commenting here rather than feeding the animals... Meanwhile, I'll happily sit down in a room and discuss PL design with the folks responsible for C#, F#, and LINQ --- alongside Scala, Java, and Fortress folks.

I just kind of realized that of the 4 major functional languages we have talked about (Haskell, Scala, Erlang, F#) they all seem to have originated with people in Europe. Haskel and F# in the UK, Scala is from Switzerland and Erlang is from Sweden. I have no idea if this means anything of importance.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account