Which is why I have no doubt the Universal Windows Platform will become the Universal Platform and be a true desktop/tablet/mobile/server/etc Java competitor on all major OS (mobile, traditional and server).

It must be rather frustrating for Microsoft to look back a decade or more and see they were sitting on the exact technology a hell of a lot of people said would be their future had they made it cross-platform from the start. I remember using C# for the first time around 2004 and thinking "god damn if this were cross-platform like Java it would kill Sun". Back then Microsoft couldn't see past the tip of their nose though.

Yup, I've been playing around with C# more lately and it's such a good language.

Things like embedding with native code is trivial compared to Java. Want to call a delegate(with extras) from a C function pointer? Sure thing, just specify some syntax and away you go. Marshalling strings? Just works.

Totally a breath of fresh air compared to the mess that is JNI.

Me too, back in the first .com wave I had access to early betas and was quite critic of it, nowadays I enjoy using it more than Java.

Although I do still like Java, just don't like having to wait for Java 10 for some of the .NET features already available (possible free AOT compiler, value types, reified generics, JNI replacement).

But that's what .NET wanted to be. That's what Silverlight wanted to be.

Until now they didn't do what was necessary to make that a reality -- actually fully embrace other platforms.

IMO this is why Google is currently building a new universal OS from scratch. They know the power Microsoft can yield with this. It will take some time to catch on, but when it does, it's going to be so big.

I think this can be explained by the fact that Microsoft has a long history of trying to kill OSS software and alternatives to it's virtual monopoly in the desktop OS market, killing innovation across many technology sectors in the process. Being cross-platform was the opposite of their goals. They specifically created their own version of open technologies and promoted them as the best/only way of doing things on windows - see directx/opengl, and mictrosoft intentionally degrading opengl performance on windows in order to hurt the OSS community.

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/01/Why-you-should-use-OpenGL-an...

Well they certainly have the resources to grow and support the .Net tech stack, that's for sure. I'm finding myself stuck in it more and more.

TypeScript was my gateway drug.

Linux is still my daily driver for getting work done but I can't help but enjoy breakpoint debugging Node applications in VS Code.

Microsoft operates as though, and under the assumption that their software is needed. It's a faulty premise. The presumption is arrogance incarnate.

As a business I can fully, completely operate without any of the their software, profitably, peaceably, and with at least the same amount of friction or less. And more securely.

If you think otherwise, you are ignorant of the tools available for free and of some intelligently thought-out engineering.

Quality of a language is such a trite, over-used discussion that the results/goals of software are completely forgotten. This too is arrogant ignorance.

How many software engineers are there in the world? It's more than taxi-cab drivers. More than Dr.'s More than teachers. Cooks, farmers, and builders (not combined of course). This is evidence of software for software's sake. There is no quality. Just a moving shell-game of "you need this".

I love writing algorithms--that PowerShell and .NET are some kind of something that will solve people's problems any better than something else is simply marketing. I have a pet rock to sell you.

As a Windows Sysadmin, my life would be a living hell without PowerShell.

Maybe consider moving away from Windows/ You are living in their world. If they want PowerShell to be adopted their whole program management will make sure you can only get things reasonably done with PowerShell. It's their world, and you don't have to be a non-paid employee of Microsoft.

By giving everything away for free?

The only related revenue stream M$ seems to have left is Azure with some vague notion that giving away their ecosystem will drive people to use their cloud more

Windows isn't free. Office isn't free. All of their enterprise server software isn't free.

Support and training contracts aren't free, either. I don't know if Microsoft does much of that, but it's another option for revenue with .NET.

Microsoft does not grow food, build houses, create clothes, cars, or protect you from foreign invaders. The basic human needs are not met by MS. The business that claimed that open-source was a cancer is just a marketing company with memetic feedback loops. Plenty of over Operating Systems are out there. Their office product is no longer relevant (vis. a vis. Libre Office, Google Docs, and others). Are you telling me a multi-billion dollar company cannot compete with a startup such as Google? There's a reason why. They do not create. Just marketing.

>Their office product is no longer relevant (vis. a vis. Libre Office, Google Docs, and others).

You have no idea just how wrong you are. Excel has no competitor worthy of even talking about. Libre Office is a mess. Google docs doesn't do everything word can and is in the realm of a toy web app.

Why is Google Docs a toy web app?