So I don't really work at a start-up in a meaningful sense anymore (Fog Creek is a decade old), but my team is just a few people, and we develop in a start-up-like mode for Kiln, which is written almost entirely on a WISC stack. I really, really like .NET, ASP.NET MVC, and C#. And I even have grown to appreciate IIS 7 and SQL Server. But if I left this company and did a start-up project all over again, there is no wa…
I recently hacked around a bug in a Python / API interaction by sending the request with Python system call to curl. I'm sure this was Not Right, but it did get'er done and on deadline. I suspect the API was somehow out of standard. I figured out the problem 1) reading the Python code and 2) with what I'd learned about HTTP requests fooling around with curl scripts on the commandline. No doubt a similar hack is avail…
Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
81–90 of 103 posts
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The licensing costs for VS.NET, MSQL, and related products are a rounding error compared to the cost of salary paid to a 3-7 man team. Not for a pre-seed startup. In that common situation, software licensing costs can be by far the biggest cost you have. > Using open-source tools to save a few dollars is a sure sign of incompetence, inexperience, and a soon-to-fail project. Saving a few dollars in return for tools…
> Not for a pre-seed startup. In that common situation, software licensing costs can be by far the biggest cost you have. In that situation, it's almost free-of-charge from Microsoft with their BizSpark (and similar) programs.
And as already mentioned by others, the problem is that the procedure for getting software through that (and other confusing programs) is convoluted.
For a startup, messing with that is a distraction when there are equal-quality tools available by simple download.
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
BizSpark is free only if you expect to not be around in 3 years. That's not really the point of BizSpark. It's to get you to the point where SW licenses aren't a huge expenditure. At my company we have a general policy on SW "If it will make you more productive -- buy it." No questions asked. We spend over $200k/year on each developer. Almost no developer purchases $10k/year in SW, but if they did, it's really not th…
I agree that productivity trumps cost. Its clear that .NET and the rest of the MS stack (if you choose to use them) absolutely do provide value. But so do Rails / Grails / Java / Django / MySQL / PostgreSQL / Redis / Cassandra / Linux / et al., with zero licensing cost (or headache), better deployment flexibility, and the ability to customize them or fix any bugs that are in your way. Certainly arguments can be made…
To be clear, I'm not trying to argue which stack provides more value. I was really trying to say that one should pick which stack provides the most value for them (using whatever metrics give you and your team value). And then most likely just go with it. The SW costs are relatively minor.
I have a hard time believing that a company looked and said, "The .NET stack gives us more value, but lets save a few bucks and go with this other stack." Except for early-ramen startups.
My major point was that BizSpark tries take this issue off the table in the early days when you might be cost sensitive. But no value judgment between .NET and other stacks.
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#84A point to consider is that having .net or php on a resume gives a lot less information than say having ruby or python.
As a hiring manager I want developers who are interested in their craft beyond merely what they learned in school. Seeing experience with obscure tech or less popular languages is an easy way to spot this.
Assuming the candidate can back up what they say on the resume, it shows that they have enough confidence and ability to go off the beaten path.
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for proving my point. It's all about consideration. Unless you're suggesting a platform that rules them all?
No, that's really the opposite of what I'm suggesting. My point is more that there is more you have to consider with the MS/.Net stack because it all comes as one big package. Want to port your RoR + pgSQL app from Linux over to a Windows server with IIS? Sure you can. Want to port your .Net + SQL Server app over from Windows to Linux + Apache? Ouch. (well maybe you can use Mono)
> My point is more that there is more you have to consider with the MS/.Net stack because it all comes as one big package.
Yes, you have to make that consideration. Which was the point of my original comment -- you have to evaluate the whole in creating any application.
> Want to port your RoR + pgSQL app from Linux over to a Windows server with IIS? Sure you can.
> Want to port your .Net + SQL Server app over from Windows to Linux + Apache? Ouch. (well maybe you can use Mono)
This type of commentary is actually a signal I use in candidate interviews. Such generalizations and their inference tells me what working experience a candidate holds.
The level of ease to which you're inferring has to do with the code that's written, not the platform. I've fixed plenty of f'd up applications in my day, and it wasn't the technology stack's problem.
In short, I find the arrows haven't so much to do with this as the archers.
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft has put a lot of effort into structuring their licensing to maximize their profits. One of the techniques they've used is to make the licensing complex enough that people over-pay to be on the safe side. Sounds like you took the path of least resistance with Microsoft licensing, and may have paid significantly more for the privilege. Maybe that was the right business decision for you, but its hardly a refut…
Hrrmmm... I take the path of least resistance on everything. Why take the path of increased resistance? As long as you do not betray the long-term goal, the path of least resistance is absolutely the one to take. Always. Keeping on-topic: To a Windows-experienced team, the path of least resistance is to stay on Windows, even with its baggage. Same can be said for every other platform: Ruby guys, stay with Ruby all th…
maximizing profit from clever scheming is different from maximizing profit from innovating. maybe this is the cultural difference that was being talked about in the article
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#87I don't agree that it is mostly culture (and "ego"). Purchasing/licensing software is always a hassle. Even aside from the monetary cost, you need to decide which to buy, go through the purchase process, and sometimes you also have some activation hassle. With open source software, you just download it and use it. If you decide to change to another version of the software or different software entirely, you just do t…
The licensing costs for VS.NET, MSQL, and related products are a rounding error compared to the cost of salary paid to a 3-7 man team. Using open-source tools to save a few dollars is a sure sign of either incompetence or inexperience, and a soon-to-fail project.
"""The licensing costs for VS.NET, MSQL, and related products are a rounding error compared to the cost of salary paid to a 3-7 man team."""
1) You keep using these words: rounding error. I don't think they mean what you think it means.
There are startups, and successful ones, that have the tiniest of budgets. People literally survive on ramen and faith. For those kind of companies, the costs are not a rounding error -- and there's often no salary or minimal salary paid to the 3-7 man team initially, while they still have to have some servers and development tools.
2) It's not just the licensing costs. Even for a team with tons of cash that makes them negligible, depending on a stack fully determined by some other company is not a good idea. Startups rewrite stuff all the time, use different technologies when they find out the old doesn't fit nicely enough, etc. You can't be dragged down because you have written all your code in a proprietary stack for each and every component...
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The costs are significant for a ramen profitable startup. For example production licences for MSSQL are not cheap. Each virtual machine for a dev is a problem. For a small startup, the cost is the time it takes to try and understand your licencing agreements - it wastes a lot of time...
If it takes a developer so much time to understand the licensing terms, or to activate a Microsoft product, ... that it cuts into their production time, they don't need to be messing with anything other than PHP.
You mean the language that powers the biggest social website of all time, Facebook, plus around 40% of the web?
What exactly have you built in .NET that is greater?
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Purchasing/licensing software is always a hassle. Even aside from the monetary cost, you need to decide which to buy, go through the purchase process, and sometimes you also have some activation hassle. This. Navigating MS licensing is an absolute headache inducing time vampire for smaller organizations.
What I hear you saying is: "There could/should be a better way to do it". Adding ", hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...." to the end of that statement may be of some use to you or others, financially.
3 downvotes? really? How are TurboTax and TaxSlayer doing? I would guess they make a bit of profit.
Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not for a pre-seed startup. In that common situation, software licensing costs can be by far the biggest cost you have. In that situation, it's almost free-of-charge from Microsoft with their BizSpark (and similar) programs.
And as already mentioned by others, the problem is that the procedure for getting software through that (and other confusing programs) is convoluted. For a startup, messing with that is a distraction when there are equal-quality tools available by simple download.
If you have personal experience with this please share it. The other people in this thread basically said it was great except for one individual who had a problem with a host that would not allow user serials.
> when there are equal-quality tools available by simple download
I suppose the keyword is when or if. I which case that becomes true.