There's just as much to say here about the community being unable to do anything if it isn't in the default templates.
How does the node community survive when they have to figure out how to implement new things on their own, without someone deciding what templates come in a box?
I certainly understand there are problems with reach, ease of use, and productivity. Many people just want to get things done.
I had a lot of hostile reactions to gulp and grunt in ASP.NET vNext (when it was still that). They questioned what would happen when the next hot thing came along, and the whole key (for them) to the platform was stability.
It'd be nice if a gulp template was in the box, just to maybe foster the idea that you can go beyond the basics, and what's built by MSFT. But some people actually tell me they see the insular bubble of everything invented by Redmond as a good thing.
Switching is fast, sure, but launch is not instant. In some cases, the perception is that the experience is slower than Xbox 360. With some things, like Settings, Friends, Achievements, Parties... those have been made into apps instead of being baked deeply into the experience.
So if I want to see who is online, it takes forever on Xbox One. On 360, it's the guide button and one click and I don't have to leave my game experience.
The Xbox One has a perception that it is slower to do simple tasks. You feel lonely because it is so cumbersome to start a party or join a friend compared to how it worked on 360 that you just stop playing with friends.
I know that once that apps are RUNNING, it IS instant, but the PERCEPTION is that it is a much slower system than the 360 because of how things were implemented.
I don't understand. Browser vendors have made it very clear they don't want to support Silverlight, so what browsers do you plan to run your apps on? Only older ones with security issues?
Silverlight was making great strides towards being a better ClickOnce and one of the most compact implementations of .NET (ironically they stumbled into something fast, small, and better for business than the projects specifically meant to produce a compact framework). If you need it for internal deployment to desktop, then I agree with you.
If you are talking about Internet deployment, the Internet doesn't want it... more importantly, Apple made sure to refuse plugins and eventually made everyone else go the same approach. It is what it is.
What I loved about this was peeking over the shoulder of two developers working hard on ASP.NET. It doesn't matter that it was more candid and had mistakes and issues. You can see a lot of thought is going into this work. It's not fluff and it's being
driven by these developers. It really breaks down some of the misguided idea that it's a monolithic organization moving in lockstep.
If IIS Express is being designed to make our developing lives easier, then I could care less about separating it. Having to install WebMatrix is no big deal if the roadmap says, "You use this to transition to deployment on IIS".
However, if the goal here is to create an alternative to IIS for small deployments, perhaps on non-developer boxes like a Server install or even just Win7 Home Premium install or something, then sure, separate it. I wouldn't want to have to install WebMatrix
on a production server.
But right now, I can't see the roadmap that says "I want IIS Express on a production server." I can see a roadmap that says, "I want to get a simple web server up now for debugging or for a demo." And in that case, wouldn't the dev tools be on the box?
If it's just because you don't like WebMatrix, that's a fine opinion... I just don't care about having to install it. Heck, it's far more mature than people think and ready to use in many small scenarios.