Thank you patriot.
I'm making interactive displays for public buildings like museums, railway stations, libraries, hotels, that sort of stuff. Things that let you browse thousands of high-res images and videos, or 3D maps people can navigate with information about various locations overlayed. This is all stuff that has to feel completely natural to interact with, which means it has to be extremely responsive, has to know where the person who is interacting with an element is physically standing, that sort of thing.
So that's what we're doing on .NET, and why we're using .NET. As for changing the world, my main motivation for working is being able to provide for my family, but working on something that makes you feel good is more important than I would've admitted six or seven years ago. The main reason I quit my last job was that I just couldn't work on yet another grey corporate form that would be met with the usual response of "Well that makes stuff easier for sure, but it would be better if...". I'm not under the illusion that I'm changing the world with the things I'm working on now, but seeing people use them with genuine joy and amazement is what makes it fulfilling for me.
That's actually really cool. And I think your argument makes perfect sense, especially considering that you control the deployment.
Thanks contextfree. That is definitely an excellent counterexample.
Channel 9 is doing what the web does well: document distribution, linking and searching. It's not what I'd call an application at all. Right tool for the right job. Most applications, however, don't fit this model, AT ALL. Then the web is no longer the right tool for the job.
That said, I'll also point out that most users actually do prefer native clients over the web for things like C9 and Facebook. No one uses their phones browser to interact with Facebook, they all use a Facebook application. There's a reason for that. :)
You are right. There is deficiencies on the web for highly interactive apps that need to be sorted out for the web to literally take over everything, if that's what we even want in the first place. But the whole "web is crap, we need to replace it entirely" is just another Itanium processor.
Because, for some people, coding is a means to the end of what the software does. The code can do things for people who can't code and those things are important.
It seems that for you, coding has to be some elitist form of mental masturbation that requires you to find a new partner each time so you can get off.
Damn right, I'm elitist. Here I am right now responding to your comment. Here I am, on a planet right now in the middle of tens billions of lightyears of space, myself a product of 4.5 billion years of unbroken evolution. Millions, perhaps billions of my ancestors lived on died on this planet, faced almost impossible odds. So that I can exist today.
That's not even the start. I am hydrogen evolved over 13.7 billion years of cosmic time that somehow gained the ability to exist as a self aware being capable of having philosophical frame of my own existence.
To change the world? That is NOTHING to what was accomplished simply by being * shot out of a womb.
I feel sorry for you, since you are burdened with the human mind but no aspiration to make any worth of it. You should have been born with a mind fit for your desired purpose instead: shitting, f*cking (if you are lucky), and sleeping and dying. An animal, and not one with sufficient neurons to ever be questioned as having abstract purpose.
I'm sure you are going to reply to this and try to come up with some really 'witty' and 'insulting' nonsense, about how I should hang my head down in shame because I want to do things with my life and you don't. But I don't care about your reply. Because by your admission - I have no reason to.
I stand by that. Webdev is popular, surely, but not because it's inherently developer friendly. Web is picked for other reasons. Like for instance, imagine if Channel 9 wasn't a website, but an *.exe you had to download. Is the dev productivity advantages worth that? Some people here I'm sure are like HELL YEA!!! F* WEB THE WEB!!, but reality seems to point differently. I personally couldn't imagine using an executable fat client to do something the web does pretty well.
Of course people were like, well lets just trick the user into downloading our executable code by embedding it in web browsers. There was some kind of craze where people completely dropped the web and made stuff in browser plugins, ActiveX, Flash, Silverlight. It didn't take off, and those systems of yesterday are the legacy systems of today. It's interesting to speculate why, but I would say same reason the Itanium never took off.
Courtesy of XKCD:
These are the guys that have been around for decades, and will continue to be around for decades. That sounds like a good investment to me.
But why bother with computer science at all if you don't want to change the world? I don't get it. I want to change the world. I don't feel happy working on something that I don't see profound world changing potential in. That might sound cheesy but it drives my own life decisions and many perhaps most other peoples in this industry. These is better fields to get into if you want boring and predictable.
@Bass: BS. .NET isn't a sinking ship, and "modern" is not HTML/JS. I hardly hate UI development... I hate web development. Or, more specifically, I hate using HTML/JS to create applications, whether they are on the web or not. Those are the wrong tools for the job. I don't need to use .NET, I can code in a very large number of languages (including HTML/JS... I've done more than my share of that). I'll choose the appropriate tool for the job at hand, thank you. That means I will choose HTML/JS from time to time... but it's rare that it's for application development.
You are right, it's not a sinking ship. It already sunk. Who is using .NET and what the hell are they using it for? I'm sure there are insurance companies and other random boring Innotek organizations in non-tech focused companies still out there using .NET for equivalently boring software development. If you enjoy that that’s cool. I don't. No one is advancing computer science, nobody is working at the brink using Microsoft technology. Including Microsoft. I'd love proof otherwise, because honestly I think C# and .NET is quite well designed. But I can't find any counterexamples.
.NET developers, you are on an iceberg that is melting rapidly and unless you want to sit around and work on legacy crap for the rest of your life I suggest picking up modern skills. Microsoft's proprietary stack is well, I wouldn't say it's becoming irrelevant. It's beyond that. It's just not relevant at all anymore.
Seriously what the hell do you guys work on? I don't know any company doing anything interesting on the Microsoft stack. Are they all underground startups or something? The Microsoft advertisements geared towards techies these days that I see is pimping out how well open source tech runs on Azure. Microsoft themselves doesn't give two shits about .NET anymore. I think it's interesting that they open sourced it, but I don't have much faith that it will be picked up by anyone important.
If you really hate UI development, you can jump ship to something besides CRUD/UI development and avoid web dev entirely. The backend doesn't need to have anything to do with the frontend. Although, you'll probably have to learn Python, R or Java (if you are lucky Scala).