On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 18:31 +0200, Paulo Pinto wrote: […] > I wonder where you got this idea from.
It may just be FUD, but… > .NET is pretty strong at Microsoft conferences, even this year BUILD had > lots of new goodies announced. > > They can decide to target the WinRT runtime instead of the CLR, go fully > native instead of generating MSIL bytecodes, or keep using CLR. There appears to be a lowering of the CLR position in the Microsoft public stances, and a rise of the native position (mostly C++). Clearly .NET remains a strong Microsoft technology in the short term, but it has not really achieved the penetration recently that perhaps it should. Many organizations I deal with are planning to replace CLR-based technologies. A lot of the organizations that were Java at the centre, and C# on the leaf nodes, are switching to Scala at the centre and Python at the leaf nodes. I present as personal evidence the amount of training work I am doing, but others are reporting similar. Admittedly this is areas where number crunching is an important component. So instead of CLR, there is a focus on JVM and native for crunching and Python for control and visualization. D could be a strong part of this and I keep making miniature technical marketing pitches whenever possible, but the C++ codes are already in place, and their strategy is already in place. > There are lots of options still open and as someone that is active in > both JVM and .NET worlds, I don't see .NET slowing down in the > enterprise space. Pretty much the contrary actually, looking at the > requests for proposals my employer receives. Clearly we are in very different sectors. Everywhere I am going JVM and native is displacing CLR. I can quite happily believe both our observations are correct! PS It has not passed my notice that revolutionary technical change often follows from the appointment of new CTOs, not necessarily from any burning need to change the technology. However it is sometimes easier to put in place needed replacement of components by revolutionary rather than evolutionary methods. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
