141–150 of 193 posts
I'm not ragging on MS devs, just an observation from personal experience. The well-roundedness of the FOSS based software engineers makes them a much better suit for startups than MS people. I don't believe technology superiority really comes into it.
I do like C# and have used it for Uni projects in the past, but I've done much more work in Python because starting out in it was as simple as typing "python", or making webapps is as simple as apt-getting or easy_installing a framework and doing a simple tutorial. What is the equivalent of, say, the Flask tutorial, for .NET?
>Essentially, the cost differences have become moot. What? Have you seen these prices? http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/pricing.aspx That's just SQL Server for god's sake.
15 bucks a month sounds very reasonable...
Giving away money I don't need to doesn't sound very reasonable to me.
However, Microsoft has been running their Bizspark program for a few years, which eliminates most of the startup costs normally associated with employing a .NET framework. The problem with BizSpark is that it is a ticking time bomb. When starting a business, you don't really know what will happen in 3 years, but only one thing is certain -- the path to success usually takes more than 3 years. And unless you've got VC…
Is there a way to learn .NET stack without downloading lots of stuff/having a student license/licensing things? I do like C# and have used it for Uni projects in the past, but I've done much more work in Python because starting out in it was as simple as typing "python", or making webapps is as simple as apt-getting or easy_installing a framework and doing a simple tutorial. What is the equivalent of, say, the Flask…
I'm not familiar with the Flask tutorial. But usually when you create a new Web or Windows project in Visual Studio you just hit F5 and you're already running a basic "hello world" app.
However, Microsoft has been running their Bizspark program for a few years, which eliminates most of the startup costs normally associated with employing a .NET framework. The problem with BizSpark is that it is a ticking time bomb. When starting a business, you don't really know what will happen in 3 years, but only one thing is certain -- the path to success usually takes more than 3 years. And unless you've got VC…
Just to back up what I wrote in the article.
I've worked with 2 start-ups. Both had a major feature release every 4-6 months with minor releases every month or two. At Piehead, most of our projects are less than 2 months from client sign-off to launch. Based on talking with other developers in the Boston area, these timeframes seemed pretty similar to what they were seeing at start-ups and agencies.
I didn't list a huge number of start-ups because I felt the post was getting a bit long and didn't want to jam a bulleted list of start-up names in the middle of the article. There are about 20,000 start-ups listed in the BizSpark directory. Granted, they aren't all web start-ups, but I've only got 5 fingers on one hand and I bet there are more than that in the directory. If you want to see a bit about running a web startup on .NET, the guys at http://www.stackoverflow.com have posted lots of articles outlining the pros and cons they've encountered.
It's also worth noting that almost everybody is a follower in the tech world. PHP and Ruby both evolved from Perl. MVC was in use before half of us were even born. In the end, these are just tools and the power comes from what we build with them.
You use the phrase "all evidence is to the contrary" a lot. If you only see evidence supporting open source tools, you're likely not looking too hard. There are pros and cons to both ecosystems and blindly tying yourself to either one will only hurt you in the long run. My main point was that many developers make decisions based on opinions not facts, and your comments seem to re-enforce that. If PHP, RoR, Django or some other platform is best for your project, use it, but don't hide behind hyperbolic psudeo-facts.
However, Microsoft has been running their Bizspark program for a few years, which eliminates most of the startup costs normally associated with employing a .NET framework. The problem with BizSpark is that it is a ticking time bomb. When starting a business, you don't really know what will happen in 3 years, but only one thing is certain -- the path to success usually takes more than 3 years. And unless you've got VC…
Hey Bad_User (if that is your real name), Just to back up what I wrote in the article. I've worked with 2 start-ups. Both had a major feature release every 4-6 months with minor releases every month or two. At Piehead, most of our projects are less than 2 months from client sign-off to launch. Based on talking with other developers in the Boston area, these timeframes seemed pretty similar to what they were seeing at…
My startup uses .Net which I chose for the basic reason that I know it very well and I didn't have time to go learn something else while I was trying to get work done. Any server I add is in response to more paying customers so the cost doesn't matter at all. It cuts into the margin a little but I only add new servers when we add a lot of new business. The initial cost of VS.Net was annoying but it wasn't bad and I w…
Are you still working on Aterium.com? Or do you have a new startup that you're working on now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a fantastic framework that should and could supplant the JVM. What makes you feel that .NET is so superior to the JVM? The JVM itself seems like a solid, performant VM platform, and there is a broad selection of languages in Scala, Groovy, Clojure, JRuby, Jython and friends. Disclaimer: I'm platform agnostic and don't currently develop on the JVM or the .NET CLR, so I have no horse in this race. I'm genuinely…
Here's a few things: 1. JVM cannot do unsafe code. In the CLR, you can create unverifiable IL and do pointer manipulation, etc. Raw memory can be free accessed however you like. That's a handy interop and performance feature. 2. JVM doesn't support structs. Again, performance difference. (Although, sometimes the CLR's JIT hasn't emitted the best code for structs.) 3. The CLR has generics. In Java, generics are implem…
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 just .NET that you're choosing; you're also choosing Windows servers, IIS, Visual Studio, etc. That's accurate as far as Microsoft has every incentive for it to be true. Microsoft developed .NET to promote the future of Windows and to compete with the JVM and other cross-platform VMs. As far as I know, they are competing with Mono.
The side effect of just wanting it to work is that eventually the whole infrastructure of the company gets dragged into the Microsoft nickel-and-diming machine and the relentless upgrade treadmill. They make you pay license fees every year for unnecessary upgrades that just move the menus around and often break applications.