Considering the .NET stack has a heavy bias towards CI, that's hard to believe.

You'd be surprised. There's a lot of shops out there who have never heard of CI/CD/Automated Tests/etc.

There is nothing inherent about the .Net stack that makes it biased or preferential-towards CI. Other than the fact that you can "do it" in a CI context, I can't think of anything else. Care to enlighten me?

Bear in mind, a lot of .Net developers don't even know it's possible to compile their projects outside of Visual Studio. Msbuild, Nant, csc.exe, "what are those?"

The standard for .NET shops is TFS. When you create a TFS project you setup CI and automated builds.

"Bear in mind, a lot of .Net developers don't even know it's possible to compile their projects outside of Visual Studio. Msbuild, Nant, csc.exe, "what are those?" There's probably plenty of java developers like that as well.

>The standard for .NET shops is TFS

I've never seen Team Foundation Server in a .NET shop. It's either been SVN, Git or Perforce. That being said I think it's very individual, but many small companies won't pay for TFS, they barely want to pay for Visual Studio Professional/Enterprise edition

I've worked at a large financial company (everyone would recognize the name) and TFS was the main build system.

It probably varies by geography, but the .Net scene I was in really didn't have a bias toward CI at all (or testing, or almost any decent development practices).

I wont argue about it, our experiences differ, and that's cool :)

Those sorts of developers exist on every platform. The trendy platforms are simply too new for non-adaptable developers to have yet made themselves visible.

As someone who has done some stuff in Mono this is funny