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

Leaving .net

whatupdave.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 221 posts

Re: Leaving .net

#101

Post by jcromartie »

sofuture wrote: post #80
ihumanable wrote: post #9

I can't agree more with the observations on MVC. It's really a symptom of .Net and Microsoft locking in the vast majority of inexperienced users with overly abstract components. Developers fresh out of college who were taught .Net in school and get a job in it become experts at Partial PostBacks and Code Behinds and binding data to the latest whiz-bang GridDataAwesomeControlForTheWin. The problem I've seen time and a…

" There are probably a lot of 9-5ers who could have that switch flipped and go from code monkey to craftsmen, but they are stuck doing WebForms and have never really got bitten by the curiosity bug " That's disingenuous bullshit. Hackers start a lot earlier than "fresh out of college". Disinterested coders aren't lost souls led astray by the ways of .Net, they're disinterested coders; they'd write Ruby with just as l…

LINQ to SQL was killed. IronRuby is terrible. Constantly evolving C# syntax is not inherently a good thing.

Re: Leaving .net

#102

Post by marknutter »

shin_lao wrote: post #10
mahmud wrote: post #2

There were already open source MVC web frameworks and an army of .net developers who could have collaborated to make them great but nothing much happened. He is lamenting that the .NET community didn't embrace the pioneering MVC frameworks from the OS community, but waited for Microsoft to deliver its own "blessed" framework. Here is what he is forgetting: Economics. A good chunk of .NET developers are not using the…

Why making money with programming makes you feel dirty?

For the same reason selling your body for money might make you feel dirty.

Re: Leaving .net

#103

Post by regularfry »

fiveo wrote: post #59
bbsabelli wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like he is annoyed at the community that surrounds asp.net MVC development. There was no mention of money, but not all broke mofos chose to not use asp.net for their web app. I also believe that asp.net would be completely dead for web development without stackoverflow.com. A shame, because C# with Visual Studio is a very nice environment. Lonely (i.e. no community), but nice.

I thought it wasn't that long time ago MS released Powershell and the latest MSBuild? These are necessities to automate some tasks in software development. Have you seen your build.proj file lately? Is it as nice as ANT or Maven? Depending on what your practice style is, Java seems to be far ahead in terms of being agile (excuse me for the buzzword). Of course PHP/Python/Ruby are even better.

There's also Rake.net.

Re: Leaving .net

#104

Post by poet »

acabal wrote: post #8

A sizeable chunk of .NET development happens in the corporate/enterprise world. That sort of environment isn't interested in collaboration, open source, etc.--they're interested in the guaranteed support the MS stack provides, and the idiot-proof web basics provided by ASP/webforms/MVC. If shit hits the fan in the .NET stack for a big enough corporate project, someone in the office can phone/email MS and get support…

Unfortunately this sort of view isn't very compatible with the indie developer ideal, or the ideals the author holds--which might one of the many reasons why you see so much Rails/PHP development in the non-enterprise space.

I'd say a much more likely reason is that the enterprise can't get enough programers to support anything other than the MS stack. The culture at large enterprise simply isn't compatible with the hacker mindset. Banks are a notable exception in my mind, but then again banks have always been fairly agile when it comes to turning a profit.

Also, the open source ideal isn't an "indie developer" ideal. Serious systems engineering goes on in the open source community and it produces what often are the technically superior solutions.

Re: Leaving .net

#105

Post by arethuza »

dschobel wrote: post #36
st3fan wrote: post #30

What do people here think of .Net as a choice of platform for startups?

for a client application or for the backend? SQL Server + Windows licensing can get crazy expensive. I know stackoverflow made it work via http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ but I believe even with that program you'll have to cough up the exorbitant licensing fees eventually. more here: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/03/stack-overflow-and-biz...

Nothing stopping you using another database - I've started using CouchDB with an ASP.Net MVC application and it all hangs together pretty well.

You could use MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite etc. just as easily.

Re: Leaving .net

#106

Post by pohl »

jimbobimbo wrote: post #98
pohl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If shit hits the fan in the .NET stack for a big enough corporate project, someone in the office can phone/email MS and get support for their problem. That's the canard, but it has seldom worked out that way for me. Whenever I've encountered a problem that can be traced to a flaw in their products, the suggestion of calling for support is usually met with riotous laughter. (In other words, everybody says it's a selli…

...or start with the official documentation coming from - gasp! - Microsoft: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd208104(PROT.10).as...

I mean no offense by this (even though your condescending gasp makes me relish the thought of offending you) but you're probably too young to appreciate the requisite historical context. The link you provided is a relatively recent change in posture for the company in question.

Re: Leaving .net

#108

Post by mahmud »

jimbobimbo wrote: post #92
mahmud wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples and oranges: 1) Microsoft is both the tool vendor and the platform vendor. The Ruby community can go ape-shit forking each other on github, but at least the underlying OS remains constant. 2) Microsoft tools cannibalized each other. There is nothing laissez-faire about its offerings: the new kills the old and the entire company, developers, reference materials, publications, marketing, and retail are in lock s…

(1) - I don't see the problem here. Somehow old DOS stuff still works in Windows 7. You need new features? They're coming with the newer OS, but your old features rarely go away. Contrast this with upgrades from PHP 3 to 4 or 5, stillborn Perl 6, great divide between Python 2 and 3. (2) - Please... Your old frameworks are still there. You are discouraged to use them, but they didn't go away. I seriously don't underst…

I worked in a different era than yours. Today, you can pick and choose the microsoft stack you want to use, if any at all, because you have choice and they don't.

Then, you sold software based on polish and integration in UI look and feel. You have to choose your tools very carefully, because of the realities of software publishing and distribution. You don't know how long it takes from the moment you press the CD-ROM, to the moment it goes on the shelf, to when it's bought. If it looks and works OK today, a year from now it would be butt ugly. Only hardware vendors could get away with ugly software. Even anti-virus software is polished and themed to oblivion. But mine corporate software with strong Office integration, it has to look modern, for some modern in the unknown future.

Did ole-good Windows API and C++ classes just go away with the advent of COM?

They didn't. I occasionally write native win32 apps with Dev-C++. But I could not, today, embed all third party components, be they MS' or off-the-shelf, using only pure C++ and win32 API.

There are tiers of Win32 interfaces and libraries, in terms of quality and system integration. On one end you have the Win32 API, and on the other end the latest managed .NET newfangled things (I am ignoring native NT layer and the DDK.) However, in between you have this graveyard of APIs, from OLE to ActiveX to COM to what have you. Each has been pushed with merciless fervor by MS, at a time when they were the only game in town.

I am glad you like your stay on .NET though. Cheers! I myself java just rediscovered Java (the JVM, really) and this is where it's at. Sun couldn't sell for shit, but they knew how to make software.

Re: Leaving .net

#109

Post by city41 »

acabal wrote: post #8

A sizeable chunk of .NET development happens in the corporate/enterprise world. That sort of environment isn't interested in collaboration, open source, etc.--they're interested in the guaranteed support the MS stack provides, and the idiot-proof web basics provided by ASP/webforms/MVC. If shit hits the fan in the .NET stack for a big enough corporate project, someone in the office can phone/email MS and get support…

> If a bug is found in the stack itself, it won't languish unsolved in bug trackers for years, like many OSS bugs do. MS will probably fix it in their next cycle

You also have the option of paying Microsoft for a QFE (quick fix engineering). With a QFE, the team fixes the bug as an immediate priority and provides you with a patch for it. All QFEs eventually get rolled up into cumulative updates and/or service packs.

Re: Leaving .net

#110

Post by bl4k »

konad wrote: post #96
CWuestefeld wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this is any worse than trying to keep up with the latest version of some OSS library. Whether it's MS that's revving or open-source developers, changes happen, and if it's a breaking change in a shared library, sometimes you get hurt. Just yesterday there was a "goodbye python" article posted here, that blamed the fact that so many Linux installations have old installations of python, and so many thin…

I see what you're saying but upgrading an OSS library is usually undertaken by somebody that thinks beforehand "I wonder if upgrading this will have any implications" whereas clicking "Express" on update.windows.com is billed as pain free, just like all things point and click. Plus I had followed the advice in MSDN concerning connection pooling which was a registry setting for ODBC NOT part of the framework I was usi…

You shouldn't be hitting 'express' on windows update on a live server just as you shouldn't be running 'update world' on a live linux server
Post reply on HN