> What I was surprised about was this weird rationalization that C#/.Net was somehow dangerous to a startup. Not only is that not true, C#/.Net is going to be better for a startup long term due to the stability that comes with that ecosystem that you flat don't get in ruby, python, js, etc.
It's "dangerous" in some scenarios for sure.
1) You want to hire locally in SV; there just isn't a concentration of developers there.
2) You want to hire senior resources for your *startup*; I emphasize startup because you're comparing apples to oranges when comparing startup to enterprise. C# is heavily used in enterprise so a startup competing for senior resources might be fighting an uphill battle
3) You want to make sure your team is plug-n-play; there's an abundance of JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python developers. For this reason, it's probably not a great idea to choose Go or Rust because now you're competing against Google and low number of senior Rust developers in general.
4) You want a full stack team; if you hire C# backend, you'll need to train your JS/TS front-end folks to be full stack. If you're full stack C#, well, you're not going to have a good time unless your app is desktop.
----
I'm a big time advocate for C# and part of the reason I joined my current startup was to see what sort of crazy team would pick C# for a SV backed startup, but I can also see the flip side of the coin.
My issue is with the idea that startups are harmed by using C#/.net.
The C#/.Net ecosystem is a batteries included ecosystem, we're not talking about trying to use C++ to implement a website.
Functionally the major difference between C#/.Net and things like node, et al, is that the C#/.Net framework will be supported far longer than the other and the upgrade path will be a lot smoother. That's not opinion, it's objective fact. I've made a lot of money supporting companies that paid for the flavor-of-the-day du jour and didn't realize they needed to stay on the rat wheel that is major upgrades. There's literally a company dedicated to support out-of-date RoR frameworks, including older versions of popular gems with security updates they maintain themselves because of this phenomenon.
My point here is this.
There is nothing inherent in C# or .Net that is dangerous to startups, that's a bubble you seem to exist in. Not choosing C# because the area is mostly Python and JS is a legitimate decision. What isn't legitimate is rationalizing that into C#/.Net itself being inappropriate for startups in general, rather than being inappropriate for that area (for ALL companies, not just startups).
This whole thing about enterprise is a red herring. Enterprise companies use Python and Ruby as well. It smacks of a community trying to rationalize something that has no true rationalization.
It's "dangerous" in some scenarios for sure.
1) You want to hire locally in SV; there just isn't a concentration of developers there.
2) You want to hire senior resources for your *startup*; I emphasize startup because you're comparing apples to oranges when comparing startup to enterprise. C# is heavily used in enterprise so a startup competing for senior resources might be fighting an uphill battle
3) You want to make sure your team is plug-n-play; there's an abundance of JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python developers. For this reason, it's probably not a great idea to choose Go or Rust because now you're competing against Google and low number of senior Rust developers in general.
4) You want a full stack team; if you hire C# backend, you'll need to train your JS/TS front-end folks to be full stack. If you're full stack C#, well, you're not going to have a good time unless your app is desktop.
----
I'm a big time advocate for C# and part of the reason I joined my current startup was to see what sort of crazy team would pick C# for a SV backed startup, but I can also see the flip side of the coin.