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

Building a Startup - Defending .NET

nashcoding.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#81

Post by shadowfox »

mindcrime wrote: post #40
tansey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, tongue in cheek. :) Though I am really buying a MBP tomorrow. I'm doing it because I need a new laptop and I like the new MBP-- but you can be sure I'll have it setup to do Windows 7 in dual boot from day 1.

but you can be sure I'll have it setup to do Windows 7 Eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww..... boo, hiss. Windows?!?? Sorry, when you mentioned a PC based laptop, I assumed it would have been running Linux (or BSD or Plan9 or Minix or some other proper operating system.) :-)

So his point about people judging him was not way off the mark ;)

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#82

Post by city41 »

latch wrote: post #55
city41 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ASP.NET MVC is closer to WebForms than Rails. Could you please elaborate on this? I've written many websites in all three technologies and I don't see how standard ASP.NET is at all like ASP.NET MVC. Standard ASP.NET is a train wreck and a simply abysmal environment to be stuck in. People managed to make successful websites in spite of it, not because of it. ASP.NET MVC may be a bit behind the times and a total rip…

I guess I owe an explanation. Most significantly, much of the Rails magic comes from Ruby. So when you say the two (WebForms and ASP.NET MVC) aren't alike, its like you are forgetting that they both use C#. The DLR is a small step, but it isn't in the same league. We can disagree that Ruby is such a significant productivity boost over C# - that's fine. But, if you think language is completely irrelevant, then imagine…

Your argument is mostly that ASP.NET classic and ASP.NET MVC are similar because they come from the same technology stack. The same argument suggests that WinForms and WPF are similar to ASP.NET MVC too. Everyone was surprised by your initial comment because hardly anyone expected anything different from this. Of course ASP.NET MVC uses the CLR, C#, IIS, etc. That's entirely to be expected. It's also a technical detail and doesn't get at the heart of what ASP.NET MVC is really trying to be and the type of development model it is putting forward. Which I would argue is far more important and pertinent than the fact that ASP.NET MVC still uses web.config files.

ASP.NET MVC was written to be flexible, testable (this was paramount), and focus on separation of concerns. Even well written classic ASP.NET applications are very difficult to test. To accomplish this MVC was forced to use a lot of interfaces and yes dependency injection. But that's an artifact of the language and again not a surprising fact at all.

Ruby is capable of things that C# can only dream of. And when C# 6 or 7 finally make it possible, it will come with awful syntax and more stuff thrown into the kitchen sink language. So yes, Rails can win big things here because of Ruby. ASP.NET MVC can't win big things here because of C#. Although it's not as bad as you make it out to be. But again, no one is surprised by this.

Don't forget a major focus of Rails 3 was to decouple things and make them more modular -- Make it easier for developers to choose a data access layer other than ActiveRecord if they wanted to. I'd strongly argue Microsoft looked at Rails 1 and 2 and wisely made the choice to not strongly couple a data access layer into MVC.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#83

Post by johns »

synnik wrote: post #75

The problem with the Microsoft stack is not technical -- it is financial. Why pay M$ license fees when other platforms are free? Especially as you scale?

Please grow up and stop using 'M$'. It's not cool or clever anymore (if it ever was) and it undermines any good points you might be making.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#84

Post by MrMan »

bad_user wrote: post #46
jschrf wrote: post #8

.NET is great. It's fast, clean, and the framework libs are incredibly good. C#, IronPython, and F# are amazing. I still haven't found an IDE that compares to VS in terms of productivity and usability. Despite all the things going for it, it's decidely un-trendy and people hate on it. I'm guessing it's primarily because it's from Microsoft. Software trends are silly.

.NET is great. It's fast, clean, and the framework libs are incredibly good. Having worked with .NET, I beg to differ -- .NET framework libs are a mess. C#, IronPython, and F# are amazing. It's not the languages that keep people away from .NET -- to put it simply -- community, tools, price. Microsoft does a good job at playing catch-up, but unfortunately (for them) when it comes to web development, innovation happens…

I agree, C# is awesome developer experience in terms of the IDE, but the rest of .Net ecosystem has never really materialized.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#85

Post by charlieflowers »

jschrf wrote: post #39
charlieflowers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true. .NET, and C# especially, is one of the few things Microsoft really got right. Anders H is a genius -- he showed it when he did Turbo Pascal, he showed it with Delphi, and he continues to show it with every new release of C#. Did you know that C# has: lambdas, closures, optional duck typing, first-class functions, better generics than Java, and type inference that is sometimes spooky? Really, the only flaw…

"Did you know that C# has: lambdas, closures, optional duck typing, first-class functions, better generics than Java, and type inference that is sometimes spooky?" I did know that, and these things heavily factor into why I default to C# for most projects these days! .NET 4 is awesome. C# is an excellent language. It has all these great things, yet doesn't feel polluted or bloated at all. I absolutely love lambdas, c…

"If you think that a language that is lazy (or worse, unspecific) about types lets you write code faster, I think that you have some fundamental problems with how you approach development.

The whole dynamic languages = faster code production is an unsettling school of thought, in my opinion."

Well, that's what I used to think too. The million dollar question is ... have you tried it?

I did a heavy Javascript project recently, and I was amazed at how much faster I could go from a vision of a complex solution to having that solution implemented.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#86

Post by mgutz »

denysonique wrote: post #27

ASP.net MVC is maybe quite similar to Rails (it actually is 'inspired by it' i.e. a rip off). But the difference between .NET and Ruby is that Ruby has a culture of hackers, and most of the innovative things re web dev are born in Ruby e.g. Haml, Capistrano etc,and then get ported to other langs e.g. { :Haml => 'PHaml', :Rails => ['many PHP frameworks', 'ASP.net MVC'], :Capistrano => 'Fabric' }

As a long time .NET developer converted to Ruby and Node.js, you hit the nail on the head. The innovators and creative types are on the open source side.

That is not to say I have not worked with talented .NET developers but for the most part the culture of .NET developers is to find a corporate job and wallow in an enterprise process. Don't do anything outside of Visual Studio and heaven forbid use anything not built by MS.

The same can be said about Java which needs to be redefined in the dictionary as THE language of over-engineering.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#87

Post by nlawalker »

jschrf wrote: post #39
charlieflowers wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true. .NET, and C# especially, is one of the few things Microsoft really got right. Anders H is a genius -- he showed it when he did Turbo Pascal, he showed it with Delphi, and he continues to show it with every new release of C#. Did you know that C# has: lambdas, closures, optional duck typing, first-class functions, better generics than Java, and type inference that is sometimes spooky? Really, the only flaw…

"Did you know that C# has: lambdas, closures, optional duck typing, first-class functions, better generics than Java, and type inference that is sometimes spooky?" I did know that, and these things heavily factor into why I default to C# for most projects these days! .NET 4 is awesome. C# is an excellent language. It has all these great things, yet doesn't feel polluted or bloated at all. I absolutely love lambdas, c…

Writing event-driven, asynchronous IO code in .NET code is a breeze.

It's about to get even breezier: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/gg316360

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#88

Post by synnik »

johns wrote: post #83
synnik wrote: post #75

The problem with the Microsoft stack is not technical -- it is financial. Why pay M$ license fees when other platforms are free? Especially as you scale?

Please grow up and stop using 'M$'. It's not cool or clever anymore (if it ever was) and it undermines any good points you might be making.

Noted. Consider my point undermined.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#89

Post by mindcrime »

shadowfox wrote: post #81
mindcrime wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but you can be sure I'll have it setup to do Windows 7 Eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwww..... boo, hiss. Windows?!?? Sorry, when you mentioned a PC based laptop, I assumed it would have been running Linux (or BSD or Plan9 or Minix or some other proper operating system.) :-)

So his point about people judging him was not way off the mark ;)

Not at all... my point isn't that people won't be judging him, my point is that it doesn't matter. And my previous response was intended to be thoroughly TIC as well, FWIW.
Post reply on HN