We only hire the trendiest

Re:We only hire the trendiest by zamalek on Monday March 21, 2016 @06:41AM (#11327191)

I struggle to understand, from a practical standpoint, where it comes from. The performance of ASP.Net is becoming outright ludicrous[1]. I've personally rewritten a lot of C++/CLR to C# and we've seen performance gains over 20% each time. C# is a language that hasn't gone stagnant, regular iterations on the language are made to meet real-world demands.

Now that the OS is no longer an issue, why isn't C# seeing more startup usage? Just look what StackOverflow does with it.[2] Startups shouldn't be judging developers for knowing it, they should be looking at it themselves.

[1]: http://www.ageofascent.com/asp-net-core-exeeds-1-15-million-... [2]: http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/7/21/stackoverflow-upda...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by zo1 on Monday March 21, 2016 @08:37AM (#11327607)

The problem is that with .Net experience comes a very big reluctance to "re-use" existing, open-source libraries. I've seen it first-hand, devs that "only" know the .Net stack. You come at them with any solution that involves "free" due to a library/project being open-source, and their brains nearly explode (bit of hyperbole, there).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by junto on Monday March 21, 2016 @09:45AM (#11327984)

Really? Everyone I know in the .Net world is busily building upon open source libraries via Nuget, which is an NPM equivalent. Most of that open source code is hosted on Github.

Now .Net is now also open source it would seem that the only proprietary part to the stack is Windows itself, and shortly .Net is going to be running on any platform.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by eropple on Monday March 21, 2016 @05:52PM (#11332422)

In my experience, trying to get people to use NuGet is like pulling teeth. When OSS dependencies are considered cromulent, vendoring, sometimes just straight-up binary vendoring, has been my experience with .NET shops. Those are the above-average places, though--I've seen a ton of reticence around using anything with an OSS license.

Coming from a Mono background, this was very weird to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by marvin on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @07:15AM (#11335660)

I think the conclusion we can draw from this discussion is that dismissing Microsoft-stack developers is a terrible generalization.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by eropple on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @11:09AM (#11337134)

Agreed in full; see my other post in this thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by zamalek on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @03:12AM (#11334876)

> I've seen a ton of reticence around using anything with an OSS license.

Very true. This used to be a point of contention where I work, but was easily fixed by having an automated process for getting our lawyers to approve OSS code (with a Nuget or Github URL). We still have to do it on a per-project basis (not per-license), but we're using lots of OSS code now and I've made a little headway on open-sourcing some of our own stuff.

These days OSS advocacy isn't that hard, especially with the hard facts demonstrated by CoreCLR.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:We only hire the trendiest by intrasight on Tuesday March 22, 2016 @12:32AM (#11334438)

And that reluctance comes from being mentored by senior software engineers who have been burned by using the latest shiny, and appropriately mentor the junior developers against using the latest shiny. We .Net developers build mission-critial enterprise apps using only the .Net stack, and most senior .Net devs would applaud one in doing so. Now I'll admit that the .Net stack is a moving target. But I'd rather have one commercially supported moving target than a dozen OSS moving targets. No rational person likes having their head explode. Being "free" has nothing to do with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]