Live data from Hacker News

Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

piehead.com

31–40 of 193 posts

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#32
post #15
post #10

Our startup is based on .Net and hosted on Azure. I don't think I realized just how uncommon this was until we were invited to Microsoft in Redmond and saw the excitement from the developers when they learned that we were a startup. We love the framework. But its definitely not the only stack we use. I also agree that there are bad .Net developers that spoil it for the rest of us. In my opinion, most of the issues se…

I agree, and the shop where I'm employed is the same--we do lots of .NET development, but other products are built on other technologies. As far as bad devs go, don't they exist for most platforms? I mean, is every Ruby programmer a genius?

I think the issue is with Webforms specifically. Webforms abstracts away so much of the way the web works that developers who have spent their careers developing on it never actually understand how the web really works. Concepts like Viewstate hide the realities of web development. The fact that almost all processing takes place on the server-side means they are weak at client-side debugging, etc.

That said, I don't think it's fair to hold the same opinion of ASP.NET MVC developers - as it's essentially the same level of abstraction as Rails.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#33
post #10

Our startup is based on .Net and hosted on Azure. I don't think I realized just how uncommon this was until we were invited to Microsoft in Redmond and saw the excitement from the developers when they learned that we were a startup. We love the framework. But its definitely not the only stack we use. I also agree that there are bad .Net developers that spoil it for the rest of us. In my opinion, most of the issues se…

How is Azure working for you? The last time I've looked into it, the documentation was rather sub standard compared to the MSDN base line.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#34

There is a strong perception (whether accurate or not--and I honestly don't know the answer) that it's the same old story with Microsoft: if you go the .NET route, you've gotta buy into the entire Microsoft ecosystem. It's not just .NET that you're choosing; you're also choosing Windows servers, IIS, Visual Studio, etc. If that perception is accurate, it's entirely reasonable to say, "Despite liking a lot of what .NE…

It's not accurate, for what it's worth. I'm working on a startup with .NET, and while I do use some parts of the MS Ecosystem (Visual Studio, C#, ASP.NET MVC, SQL Server, IIS) I use plenty of tools that aren't from Microsoft (NUnit, JQuery, Github, ReSharper, TeamCity, DotTrace, DotCover, Selenium). Any good technologist mixes and matches the things that work best for their solution, right?

That's not really saying much. You just mentioned a Microsoft stack with a few client-side or third-party libraries. How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, nginx and postgres?

The pieces you mentioned are either all on the Microsoft stack or irrelevant to it. jQuery and github, for example, have nothing to do with your backend's stack.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#35
I use both .NET and the LAMP stack everyday. I love .NET and C# is a beautiful language. But I have to use Windows to use .NET. There is nothing wrong with Windows, except it doesn't have a very good shell; it doesn't come with the GNU user land; I can't just grep and sed and awk on one line to solve problems and answer questions; when I google for help with stuff like mysql I don't find near as many answers that would apply to windows; I can't just type "apt-get install ..." somewhere to try out a new programming language or other large program for free; I can't solve problems with SSH. All of these problems can be solved to a large extent, but not in a well known, well documented and Free way. Maybe that's just a matter of culture, but until the not-artificially-limited version of Windows can be downloaded for free, I can't give it a fair try.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#36
post #8
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. Especially with tools like Mono that allow you to run .NET code on Linux/Mac OS X.

Mono lets you run some .NET code on Linux/Mac OS X. Some of my favourite pieces of Microsoft technology are missing or too broken to use - for example WPF is an excellent tool for building desktop applications but it doesn't work on Mono, F# sort of works until you try doing recursion with abstract data types.

IMHO it's kind of silly to expect things like WPF to run on multiple platforms - and I'm actually glad it does not.

The world doesn't need more apps with lowest-common-denominator UI. Ugly, kludgy, doesn't work well on any of its platforms because it cannot leverage any platform-specific UI strengths. If anything, the last decade of desktop and mobile computing has shown beyond a doubt that a highly refined user experience is paramount for anything that faces general users. In fact, an app with fewer features, but a superb user experience, will trounce a more capable app with terrible UI (see: Apple).

This is also why I dislike apps that use the UI components from Java - they don't look, feel, or work like native UI widgets. Their layout is often confusing, since they are trying to appease the learned design patterns of multiple disparate OSes with a single design. They end up being awkward, frustrating, and a very poor experience. I have never met a Java-UI app that even reached an acceptable level of usability.

For me, having Mono run well with the obvious cross-platform bits (threading? file system access? etc etc) is enough. I for one really like C#, and would much rather write it than Java.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#37
post #29

Closed source. If it breaks (really breaks) I (or anyone without a Microsoft badge) can't fix it. And if they do fix it, it will take a while for the patch to get to me. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Ironically, I spend at least 25% of the time when working with .Net fixing stuff that has broken.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#40
post #2

The real answer is just as much about our industry’s culture as it is about technology. No, it's entirely about our industry's culture. Which is a shame. It's a fantastic framework that should and could supplant the JVM. It never will though, thanks to Microsoft's boneheaded choices and the blog posts like 'Why I don't hire .Net developers'.

But the culture is a direct result of the Microsoft brand.

Many of us have been at this long enough to at least dimly remember Microsoft's antics in the 90s. Others of us are still dealing with other aspects of the Microsoft technology stack, and hating it.

For instance, I've spent most of a full work-week with a client recently because their SBS 2008 AD server went haywire. We've been troubleshooting ridiculous network issues ever since. We've had to deal with cryptic error messages, software that takes forever to do simple things, software that doesn't do what it tells you it's doing.

And the thing is, this feels normal for anything that comes with the Microsoft brand.

I'm sure there are exceptions. .NET may well be one of them -- I'm totally unfamiliar with it. But, if I'm building a startup, and I already know PHP (or Ruby, or Python...), and I've got all of these bad experiences behind me with Microsoft products, why would I even consider learning .NET?

Post reply on HN