171–180 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monodevelop is apparently a pretty good IDE, even though I haven't used it myself. I personally can't see myself using Eclipse on purpose again.
SharpDevelop is good for C# development.
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 wou…
> it doesn't have a very good shell Get a better one then: http://jpsoft.com/tccle_cmd_replacement.html and terminal: http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/ >it doesn't come with the GNU user land just unpack this in PATH http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/UnxUpdates.zip it has grep and awk and sed and all that > I can't solve problems with SSH from client side (putty) or server side ( http://sshwindows.sourceforge.ne…
Regardless of platform, a wholesale rewrite is rarely viable. Facebook is still on PHP, and have had to take heroic measures to avoid moving to another language.
It all goes back to everything Microsoft offers is tightly coupled to Microsoft's ecosystem, and frankly I've played in that space for years and just got bored of it, plus I got tired of investing in learning Microsoft-specific APIs that Microsoft itself kept obsoleting. Nothing really new or interesting is happening in Microsoftland. Instead every new offering is just an incompatible counter-offer to some other esta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there's definitely a split. Core infrastructure like the CLR, OS, and IDE greatly benefit coming from MS (although none are requirements, as Mono demonstrates). But anyone who does serious .NET dev work knows that tons of third-party tools are used. One big difference I notice in .NET shops is that they seem a lot more willing to pay for the best solution. Whereas for FOSS shops they seem more likely to get an a…
FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh? How do you reconcile that with the fact that .NET MVC is a blushingly obvious imitation of Ruby on Rails?
The MVC design pattern has been in use since 1979; it's nothing new. It's also worth noting that Java devs and Microsoft devs were building MVP (a modified version of MVC) based apps in the 90's.
I'm not trying to dis RoR, because it seems like a pretty solid framework and nobody can deny that the 37signals guys were the motivating force behind the current wave of MVC development. However, what they created was a better web implementation of an existing pattern and I honestly think Django and CakePHP are much more obvious imitations.
Finally, it's worth noting that the ASP.NET MVC framework is open source and has similar license to RoR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the .NET "culture" has transferred through even to your company name!
I'm glad someone got it! You wouldn't believe the number of people who spell the company name as iActionable. How dare they turn it into an Apple product!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd buy your argument if Ruby on Rails only worked on Amazon servers, or if by using Ruby you could only use nginx and not Apache. The fact is when writing a .Net web app, if you don't like the way IIS or Windows Server or their providers are handling things, you're out of options. Oh and if you want those nice features that make the ecosystem usable, you get to upgrade everybody to the Pro version (not just the peop…
That's not really true. The providers in .NET are similar to the convention over config philosophy present in RoR. IIS and ASP.NET provide a lot of features in what they consider the "most common" manner. However, almost every one of the built-in providers can be overridden with a custom provider. In fact, I've set Wordpress up on IIS a few times and used a custom ISAPI module to allow mod_rewite like functionality t…
I'd argue that the gap between 'any' and 'almost any' is larger than what you're implying - at least large enough that it can't be ignored.
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…
Not so sure that's the driver here. Many devs have bought into the iOS ecosystem. This certainly isn't cheap: macbooks, imacs, iphones, ipod touches, ipads. It's also a pretty deep dive to get into. On the web side, I really think cost is the driving factor more than anything. As long as there's a free (open source) solution to MS's framework that is on par (we can argue either way which frameworks/platforms are bett…
As far as backend development is concerned. You have to buy the tool chain as well as the software(read OS, SQL Server, IIS etc etc) for the servers that your developed software runs on. Now the problem comes when you need scalability. Adding more servers to your stack means not just spending money on hardware but on the software stack as well.
So now it all boils down to buying real large and powerful servers since scaling out is not cheap. This has added risks like on issues like replication, back up etc etc.
No one wants to be caught up in this sort of a situation. Especially start ups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh? How do you reconcile that with the fact that .NET MVC is a blushingly obvious imitation of Ruby on Rails?
They're both implementations of the MVC pattern, but short of that there seem to be very few similarities between them. Admittedly, I've only built one project in RoR, but the framework itself required much less configuration and Ruby is a huge departure from the Java/C# coding style. The MVC design pattern has been in use since 1979; it's nothing new. It's also worth noting that Java devs and Microsoft devs were bui…
The similarities between ASP.NET MVC and Rails aren't just that they both use MVC, that's shallow. ASP.NET MVC is blushingly similar, nothing else comes even close, not even those who claim to try to imitate Rails.
I'm not saying ASP.NET MVC is bad, in fact it seems pretty good. But anyone using and liking it really ought to have a look at the original, from where Microsoft lifted it wholesale. Those guys must be doing something right.