The original author missed a vital viewpoint. He assumed that .net developers would never be good because they reluctant to try new technologies. He then evaluates that as a bad thing. Thats not quite so. This is a testament to how good and mature Microsofts ecosystem is, and the benefits thereof. In business sense. It doesn't make sense to hire a pool of developers who are good at various cutting edge technologies when the current stack can cater for all business needs. Most .net shops are enterprises which have no need for cutting edge technology. In my opinion,that conclusion should then lead to, should we rather not ask "what makes a good developer?". Theres no simple answer. Example, to a business that employees you to ship code, and you constantly maintain good quality and meeting deliverables. Would that not be considered a good developer?