31–40 of 99 posts
Later on I worked for a few others that were also using .NET.
It's slow and closed source. Not being pedantic, it is just super stagnant compared to open source platforms.
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/dotnet/performance-improvemen...
There has always been a dark horse OS within .NET its called F#. But what is sad about the state of the average C# dev is that when I ask them about their opinions on F#, they always respond with a "whats F#?" That's the problem with most .NET developers. They were fed straight from the MS spoon with blinders on, and never wondered what is out there. But to label oneself as a "I'm a .NET dev", and yet you don't know…
>What are you thoughts as to why .NET hasn't taken off at startups? To echo what others said... A lot of hot startups are founded by young college kids. They don't have money for expensive Visual Studio licenses to program in C# and .NET world. In contrast, the alternative dev tools like Java, Ruby, PHP were free. In college classes, they would have played around with free software instead of Microsoft. Microsoft cha…
I don't agree. When I was a student, Microsoft was pushing their MSDN for students very hard, as well as their other programs (like Microsoft Student Partner). As a student, Microsoft's tools have always been free and very easy to obtain. On top of that, they were the only ones that provided me with free cloud credits to host my stuff. I never gotten any from competitive cloud vendors. This is in Europe though, I feel Microsoft has a much stronger foothold here than in the US.
It's slow and closed source. Not being pedantic, it is just super stagnant compared to open source platforms.
>What are you thoughts as to why .NET hasn't taken off at startups? To echo what others said... A lot of hot startups are founded by young college kids. They don't have money for expensive Visual Studio licenses to program in C# and .NET world. In contrast, the alternative dev tools like Java, Ruby, PHP were free. In college classes, they would have played around with free software instead of Microsoft. Microsoft cha…
Your post doesn't do that. Most other posts name other reasons (potentially legitimate ones), your "it is expensive" justification is inaccurate and doesn't echo most posts here.
> Microsoft charged money in multiple areas of the stack: the compiler (VS) cost money, the database (MS SQL Server) cost money, and the operating system (Windows licenses) cost money.
The C# compiler is free and OSS. You don't need Visual Studio to use it. In fact many use it with VSCode, VIM, or Notepad++ for $0. You can also pay less money and use Jetbrains' Rider, or 5x commercial users can use Visual Studio Community Edition if you want a fancy IDE.
MS Sql is non-free. But not at all part of .Net Framework. So it is off-topic. You can use MySQL, PostgreSql, SQLite, most Cloud database solutions (Azure, AWS, Google Cloud), or whatever you want. Drivers are readily available.
You also don't need Windows. .Net Core is available for Linux and MacOS. So if C#/.Net Core + VIM + Linux + MySql is your thing? You can. For $0. Today.
This type of misinformation is why people don't look to .Net Core though unfortunately.
I’ve worked in a .NET based startup before. While .NET itself is very nice, the ecosystem is not quite there so it’s a lot harder to get started and manage compared to other open source stacks. It’s harder to automate and script. A lot of tools you rely on aren’t made to run on Windows. Windows itself is hard to automate. For example, rebooting your EC2 instance might trigger a hour long Windows Update. You can’t rea…
IMO Core runs extremely well on Linux:
When I make a standalone (or rather a folder full of everything it needs to run without installing the whole .Net framework) it actually runs way quicker on a linux vm than it runs directly on Windows directly on the same metal.
This surprised me a bit, but so far the results has been consistent.
I find c# a great language, much better (more argonomic, less verbose, less 'patchy') than Java. I do believe that historically developing on .net didn't make sense for startups because of the huge licensing tax for the OS (servers and Dev stations) and developer tools. Moreover the usual bodies that preferred paying licenses for stable vendor were large, slow enterprises. This made .net appear less sexy and fashiona…
Paul Graham effectively invented startups as we know them. Back in about 2005 already, he just gave a piece of advice: everyone who tried to build using Microsoft technologies, failed. Maybe enough people listened?
He had even stronger opinions about Java despite Amazon and Google (not to mention many others) being built in it. I could never figure that out because he's quite insightful about a lot of other things.