Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Official support for .NET

stripe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Official support for .NET

#31

Post by nodesocket »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #19

I'm using the Stripe.NET library - but begrudgingly - there's a whole slew of FxCop-compliance issues with the code and some code-smells that I don't like (e.g. they read the JSON objects into strings, then deserialize the strings - it's more efficient to use the JSON.NET stream-deserializer). My biggest issue is the lack of `using()` statements: objects are not being disposed-of correctly! (I'd submit a PR with fixe…

Understand about not having the time, but maybe you could create issues (https://github.com/stripe/stripe-dotnet/)?

Re: Official support for .NET

#32

Post by scarface74 »

martinald wrote: post #18
ComputerGuru wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mono has never put a focus on reliability or production-ready code. It's been awesome for desktop software and client applications, but we actually deployed ASP.NET on Mono to unify our deployment environment across our web infrastructure and ran into random bugs and show stoppers on a daily basis. And I'm not just talking about the horrible process of getting Visual Studio projects to deploy to a Mono server, the un…

I agree, I've been using mono in semi-production for the best part of a decade for ASP.NET and it's been a complete nightmare every time. It's also a shame that VS for Mac is so half baked for web projects despite MSFTs backing. This issue I have been search for an answer for a while is so obvious I don't understand how they didn't catch it: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43967326/visual-studio-m...

Luckily there is a better alternative....

https://www.jetbrains.com/rider/

Re: Official support for .NET

#33

Post by dbnoch »

lwansbrough wrote: post #24

More Silicon Valley startups need to get on board with .NET. Yeah, I know it's strongly typed and doesn't abuse white space, but you're missing A LOT of potential customers when you skip out on .NET. Seems like a really poor business decision to ignore it simply because there isn't someone on your team who has built a compiler for it in their spare time.

I just wanted to chime in on this. IMO It will happen more often now, but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) which is the real reason why SV startups haven't been on board.

It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company.

Re: Official support for .NET

#34

Post by figers »

martinald wrote: post #18
ComputerGuru wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mono has never put a focus on reliability or production-ready code. It's been awesome for desktop software and client applications, but we actually deployed ASP.NET on Mono to unify our deployment environment across our web infrastructure and ran into random bugs and show stoppers on a daily basis. And I'm not just talking about the horrible process of getting Visual Studio projects to deploy to a Mono server, the un…

I agree, I've been using mono in semi-production for the best part of a decade for ASP.NET and it's been a complete nightmare every time. It's also a shame that VS for Mac is so half baked for web projects despite MSFTs backing. This issue I have been search for an answer for a while is so obvious I don't understand how they didn't catch it: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/43967326/visual-studio-m...

Luckily VS Code just as awesome on Windows, a Mac or Linux for my .NET Core MVC app.

Re: Official support for .NET

#35

Post by Clubber »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #15

Ugh, thank God. I get that until 2016 and Nadella/.NETCore only Ruby, JavaScript, and Python were the hipster languages of choice for web development... but .NET has been an awesome, rapid-development, tried-and-tested, business-friendly option for creating business applications, including, believe it or not, eCommerce platforms. Outside the "hacker bubble" no one in their right mind would have neglected .NET as a fi…

I'm surprised it took them this long to support .NET. I just started using Braintree on one of my projects and it supports .NET.

Re: Official support for .NET

#36

Post by frik »

lwansbrough wrote: post #24

More Silicon Valley startups need to get on board with .NET. Yeah, I know it's strongly typed and doesn't abuse white space, but you're missing A LOT of potential customers when you skip out on .NET. Seems like a really poor business decision to ignore it simply because there isn't someone on your team who has built a compiler for it in their spare time.

PG wrote some essays about it: startups better spend their seed/series money on other things than software licenses.

Then the unthinkable happened: after PG left, HN got MSFT PR-heavy in spring 2015. People should learn from the history.

Re: Official support for .NET

#37

Post by bradford »

dbnoch wrote: post #33
lwansbrough wrote: post #24

More Silicon Valley startups need to get on board with .NET. Yeah, I know it's strongly typed and doesn't abuse white space, but you're missing A LOT of potential customers when you skip out on .NET. Seems like a really poor business decision to ignore it simply because there isn't someone on your team who has built a compiler for it in their spare time.

I just wanted to chime in on this. IMO It will happen more often now, but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) which is the real reason why SV startups haven't been on board. It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company.

> .NET had/has a higher cost to entry

> It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company.

What cost(s) are you thinking of here? .NET doesn't cost anything (monetarily). Some of the tools cost money but you can also get by in the .NET world with a command-prompt and text editor (I did as a hobbyist for quite some time).

I might be misunderstanding your statements, but it's also possible that you're misunderstanding .NET, I'm just trying to clarify which one it :)

Re: Official support for .NET

#39

Post by thanksgiving »

A little off-topic but I'm gettinga little impatient.

What is the reason we can't have a dnf install dotnet or apt install dotnet and have it linked to whatever is the most recent? I can even do that with php-cli.

A deeper problem to me is I don't think there's enough expertise outside of Microsoft to continue this project should Microsoft decide to take its toys and go home.

Re: Official support for .NET

#40

Post by recentdarkness »

bradford wrote: post #37
dbnoch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just wanted to chime in on this. IMO It will happen more often now, but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) which is the real reason why SV startups haven't been on board. It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company.

> .NET had/has a higher cost to entry > It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company. What cost(s) are you thinking of here? .NET doesn't cost anything (monetarily). Some of the tools cost money but you can also get by in the .NET world with a command-prompt and text editor (I did as a hobbyist for quite some time). I might be misunderstanding your stateme…

One needs to invest $$ because you pay money for the developers time to create software
Post reply on HN