I've seen this response before, but why on earth would we be using C# if not for its included batteries? I can't imagine a world where we would have chosen C# to write an API unless there were some specific benefits, and while I may be wrong to assume this, I don't think I've ever met someone who would. Not so much because there is anything wrong with C# or .Net for that matter, it's okish, it's just well... Honestly, writing C# is a lot like writing typescript with bad linting rules, at least to me. It's not that bad, but it's also not something I'd ever really want to do.
I agree with you that the choice of language should not be based solely on the language itself, but also on the ecosystem it provides for the task you need to complete.
I was just pointing out that your critique was about the included batteries, not the language. Every language has some bad libraries in its ecosystem.
The point I was trying to make was that C# has nothing but bad libraries in it's ecosystem. I've worked with quite a lot of languages and I've never experienced anything like it. Well, obviously Node has an "interesting" environment, but the flip-side is that it's very easy to work with what isn't there. C#'s libraries are like half-charged batteries that you won't realize are only half-charged until it's too late.
