I hate to ask this, and I'm sure you're asking yourself, but: why didn't you just build on a desktop app platform? There's something preventing your users from running a full application?

Had this post been your original quesiton I think you would have gotten some better answers but I don't think you'll ever get a straight answer because there are so many unknowns. .NET matters in markets that use it. Anywhere that uses .NET is likely going to be strictly .NET. The open sourcing of .NET is certainly not going to dramatically change the landscape in favour of .NET but internal to the .NET ecosystem I can only see things improving.

Of course considering .NET a "no brainer" choice is a HUGE mistake. It has places where it works well, for sure - but trying to get .NET to do things it's not good at doing is not going to be fun. Look at project requirements, compare possible frameworks, see what fits your team; choose the best tool for the job.

Your reply is also somewhat confusing to me. I don't think you've actually looked into the issue. .NET popularity has gone downhill as more developers want to use more dynamic and developer-oriented solutions which are almost invariably open source. This is an actual trend; a real statistic, and essentially the reason why MS went ahead and open sourced .NET.

As for C and .NET you can use .NET quite easily with C. Even if your project is strictly in C#, if you know C I doubt you'd have much trouble with C# (other than maybe getting the hang of good-practices?).

There is no real demerit to learning .NET and it's not like it's a poorly designed framework. It's just that it's really designed with this enterprise approach in mind that was once its strengh but is now it's demerit. The "new wave" of large scale app dev isn't to build a Titanic in .NET, it's to build an armada of smaller multi-purpose apps that work together as a group each built with the language and framework that best suits it. There is also the fact that even though open-sourced it's really not easy to do development or deployment on anything but an MS platform, and really only MS products tie in well with it - so .NET still comes with some vendor lock-in and if you aren't an MS shop then that's a huge demerit.

1. I'm really sorry you wrote that long comment because I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you and I'm not some Enterprise Java nut (I actually really, really hate Enterprise Java).
2. "Lol, are you serious about that? That's not true at all! I work at a fortune 500 company" Awesome tone there; fuck you. So your big super rich company got sold on .Net and you're switching over to it. Good for you? I honestly don't care. Though I totally agree on most of your points comparing .Net to Java and by that criteria I can absolutely see why your company did the switch.
3. From what I have seen your saying Java is being "weeded out" is completely accurate. No disagreement from me there!
4. .Net isn't the only framework you can use with multiple languages - though I would question using one framework end to end when it may be more efficient and mangable to instead take a pre-module-framework approach with specialized dev teams on each module. Note that I said "may be" in the last sentence - definitely not one-size-fits-all.
5. Not bashing .NET but not my cup of tea. Keep your mind open, play with some alternative frameworks, and most of all have some fun.

You are a .NET dev in a .NET company with .NET devs. Why on earth would someone there just up and say "Oh hey, .NET isn't as popular as it was before and many new systems at other companies are being developed in other frameworks. Let's just change all our stuff at increidble cost and huge risk with a massive learning curve".

Of course you're not going to hear that and I'm most certainly not going to tell you to drop or weed out .NET for where you are at. But please be aware your personal experience in your own enclosed environment likely does not reflect global trends. Also, do yourself a favour and check out other frameworks and languages - even it you don't feel compelled to switch you may learn some tricks and new ideas you can bring back into your .NET dev.

Uhh... .NET usage has been falling for many years now, that's why they made it open source to try and recover from that trend. I'm confused as to why you are asking for citation when the whole discussion is sort of based on this issue. Also note that headhunters looking for .NET devs could be the result of devs *leaving* .NET causing a lack of hands and thusly an increased need.

If you want a more detailed answer: .NET was generally used in these huge systems where end to end would be built with the same framework. The thing is .NET is not always the "right tool for the job" and increasingly it is rarely the framework devs want to work with. Because of this the general trend is to have more modular systems where each component is built separately and just connected with an API or some cross-component communication protocol (EG Rails server app with API and native mobile clients).

Of course there are a variety of mertis and demeris, cost issues, etc. to consider so I'm not going to tell you to get off .NET but it would probably be a good idea to keep an open mind and to at least try out some other frameworks (and languages) in your spare time. That "gradual increase" you are preceiving in .NET could end and it would be good to have a fallback; not to mention you can reverse-import some tricks from other frameworks into .NET once you know them (or bring some tricks from .NET into other langauges or frameworks).

.NET is slowly beeing weeded out of the enterprise though and that's a trend I don't want to see diminished by devs picking up .NET because it's now "open source". It's OK to hate .NET, open source or not.

Even at the time I thought it was on purpose to calculate new charges for volume licensing. If I remember correctly they had different plans like where you would buy lots of say 100 licenses. I think you could also add individual licenses to the pool but I never really investigated it. The thing was this was all on a private intranet so it's not like MS would be notified to send a bill as soon as the licenses went into the negatives.

To be honest I really don't care about how the system works as I'm an all OSS shop now and don't deal with MS past a Windows 8 VM we use for testing cross-compilation.

I'm sure this has been fixed - or I hope it has, but when I was imaging a lab at a university they had a license server. The admin had just been clicking next on all the automated activtions the available license count went into negative numbers without any sort of alert or warning. I guess maybe it's not a bug, but perhaps a way for MS to come in a few months later and charge a bunch of money because the admin forgot to de-activate the licenses before re-imaging.

Wow, that's pretty amazing!

So these remote starters you had were very analog devices. Today the engine initialization sequence requires a variety of digital magic and proper remote starting requires encrypted signals and identification. NOW your original comment makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks for the interesting sub-thread!

Whoa whoa whoa, you forgot the context there! In the 60's absolutely none of what I said was valid or at least I'm sure it wasn't common place. My point was that *today* if you said you wanted a remote starter I'd ask you why and try to recommend a device that solves your specific problem in a secure and efficient manner.

Wait... you had remote starters in the 60's?

As for garage doors, we have a shutter at our office that constantly gets messed up and requires a complex, very analog reset process. On top of that we're right in front of a busy street. It's not uncommon I have to pull into a side street, open up the side door, manually lift the shutter, run back to the car, make three left turns and pull into the garage. So believe me when I tell you that my opinion on garage doors is that they are absolutely wonderful (when they work).

No, but I also don't live in a place that gets extremely cold either. The thing is if you want to heat the engine then you should get a block heater. If you want to heat the cabin there are separate and add-on heater units and modular heaters specifically designed to do this without having to turn on the engine. Of course in general you should probably be winterizing your car so you don't need a block heater; EG: insulated heavy-duty battery and a bottle of fuel line condensation remover at least.

If I'm not mistaken most hybrids actually have an electric pump and heater on the coolant or water line that functions as sort of an active block heater.

Also if you have a manual it's common practice to leave the vehicle in gear, so besides the fact you usually need to de-clutch just to start if you did disable the cutch sensor you'd also have to worry about accidentally leaving the car in gear - and if you aren't leaving the car in gear you have to worry about fogetting the e-brake or an unreliable e-brake on an older vehicle.

So I maintain my position that remote starters are a bad idea.

I'm assuming you mean my idea is stupid; which in all likelyhood it is but I never claimed to be an expert in the field of probes and space exploration. Was there something particularly stupid about my post that actually warranted a response?

Reguardless of how "patentable" things like round buttons and beveled edges should be you obviously don't understand how patents work. If Apple tried to sue the people they derived from for patent infringement they would loose and also run the risk of having their patent nullifed. If the people they copied from wanted to nullify the Apple patent or come to Samsungs aide in the case Apple put against them they could have. None of these things happened.

And while we're on the subject, Samsung has a long history of non-trivial patent infringement. For instantance they blatantly stole Sharp LCD TV technology when it was the hot thing at the time and basically destroyed the market for Sharp after sharp had put immense effort and research into the technology. Even today Sharp has not recovered from this.
http://online.wsj.com/articles...

There are many many many other cases too. Samsung is unforgivable. They just copy everything and they think this is a valid business strategy. Seriously, why do more people not boycott them?

Total. Fucking. Bullshit.

Unless you're trying to use some remote starter kit from the caveman era there are plenty of ways to implement a competent remote starter system. If you already have a keyless starter you can actually do it with an ODB-II plug-in - no line splicing and no engine bay work.

Of course I'd really question why people want remote starters in the first place. And while we're on the subject cruse control and throttle control are two things I continue to think are awful ideas.