.NET gets selected because a lot of non tech companies need to do software things, and they pick the stack fits in with their current WinTel stack. The main concerns is having replaceable talent to reliably do x. They're not trying to innovate. They are often doing something like sending out insurance quotes by email. They do this by having strict processes, and having developers stay in their lane. Expect rigid scrum, using dependencies only supported by Microsoft etc, Locked down Dev machines with visual studio only, ask for microsoft dev certs, and expect pre-approved enterprise design patterns up the wazoo. They don't want innovative developers, they want you to fit into the pre existing framework designed by an architect. Your skills can die in such an environment.

There are companies that use .NET that aren't like this, but you have to go out your way to find them.

Where as large 'tech' companies don't tend to be like this.

Disagree. I would argue Java is more of a choice for "Enterprise".

Also, would you please define the scope of "enterprise".

If you mean "enterprise" as someone who want consistent and predictable management and productivity, then sure .NET is "enterprisy", because instead of a dragon they want a fossil.

But if you mean "enterprise" as they want to sell their core product, and sometimes that pushes to high developmental velocity with multiple development team to tackle on a feature, then .NET is evolving fast enough that it is not so considered "enterprisy".

Heck, even Ruby on Rails would replace .NET for that, especially when you consider the e-commerce scene that is either Ruby or PHP (Wordpress).

Just look at C# and its incredible language revision every year.

.NET was literally created to replace the Java enterprise ecosystem. It never managed to completely displace it, but effectively gained around half of the enterprise market - and it will take more and more, after Oracle started pulling their usual boa-constrictor moves. C# is as "enterprisey" as they come, and it went full-opensource only once it became a requirement even in the enterprise.

But I would levy the same complaint with most Java[1] usage as well.

1. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Yes, again, you're criticizing the practices of enterprises not dotnet. It has nothing to do with how "dotnet shops operate".

I'm at a dotnet shop who doesn't work anything like that. I've been at multiple of them. It has nothing to do with dotnet itself.

I'm not saying all dotnet places are like this, but they are common.

"The main concern is having replaceable talent to reliably do X" as in every other company?

I swear you guys make having a regular job sound like being under slavery. It's just a job. Some companies are boring, that's just part of the job, and being able to adapt to different environments is what makes a good sde imo.

My machine is not locked down. I can use vim or whatever ide/editor I want. We don't use scrum/safe, we're expected to contribute to the actual system design. etc If I have a choice, i'm not working at a place like that.

However if you work in dotnet at a traditional "enterprise", it is highly likely to be like this. I have a choice, so i'm not going to choose that.

Wanting replaceable talent drives the tech decisions to only use the "standard" microsoft stack. Other companies value picking the right tool, then teaching people. The best companies don't even care what language you use, and are happy to bring you up speed.

I've found a position that uses dotnet which does not have this culture which is good. But i can totally imagine not picking dotnet to avoid this culture.

Companies who choose Microsoft everything don't think much. They're not risk takers, and I don't even mean substantial risks. They're stubborn, old-school. But not in a charming way, in a 'grampa won't stop talking about how great it was before integration' way.