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

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#11

Post by bdclimber14 »

tansey wrote: post #6
latch wrote: post #2

Same as most other posts defending one technology choice versus others. It's what I know best...I like the tools...can't we all get along... The only interesting point is also the vaguest...The AI that's already available in .NET (and, by the way it's stated, apparently not in others). I also have to counterpoint that ASP.NET MVC is "conceptually" the same as Rails/Django. Conceptual similarities are pretty meaningle…

> Actual coding-wise, ASP.NET MVC is closer to WebForms than Rails. How so? I've never worked with WebForms, but I have done a few Rails projects. I don't see any real differences except for ActiveRecord, which does have a .NET port: http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/ Also, I wasn't trying to start a fight (really!). I just think that more .NET hackers should be motivated to do startups. IMHO, I think this is…

I have several years of experience in ASP.net webforms, MVC, and Rails, and I also don't see the argument that webforms is closer to .net MVC than Rails. Sure, the syntax is more similar because both can be C#. I'm guessing this is what you mean, but the philosophy and architecture of MVC presents such a dramatic difference from webforms that I would argue it is strikingly different.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#12

Post by bdclimber14 »

tansey wrote: post #6
latch wrote: post #2

Same as most other posts defending one technology choice versus others. It's what I know best...I like the tools...can't we all get along... The only interesting point is also the vaguest...The AI that's already available in .NET (and, by the way it's stated, apparently not in others). I also have to counterpoint that ASP.NET MVC is "conceptually" the same as Rails/Django. Conceptual similarities are pretty meaningle…

> Actual coding-wise, ASP.NET MVC is closer to WebForms than Rails. How so? I've never worked with WebForms, but I have done a few Rails projects. I don't see any real differences except for ActiveRecord, which does have a .NET port: http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/ Also, I wasn't trying to start a fight (really!). I just think that more .NET hackers should be motivated to do startups. IMHO, I think this is…

I have no problem with .net, but what od you mean about "all the pieces are in place"?

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#13

Post by wriq »

Existing expertise

If the goal is to get to a minimum viable product quickly (like most startups) then existing knowledge is a pretty good reason to go with a certain stack. He even mentions having the main algorithm already implemented in C# so at that point it's pretty much no contest. He can always go the route similar to StackExchange in using Linux & Open Source on utility servers (Caching/Load Balancing) and keeping the MS-centric App/Database server.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#14

Post by tansey »

vyrotek wrote: post #5

We've had our share of surprised faces when we told people our company is based on .Net as well. There were a lot of reasons for us to use the Microsoft stack. One of them was also existing expertise . My CoFounder and I previously worked as C# developers for years before working on IActionable.com full-time. And yes, Visual Studio is that awesome. "AppHarbor - It's Heroku for .NET. You simply can't beat it." I agree…

> was invited to Redmond to meet the dev teams as part of an early adopter program.

I think that's the problem I see with Azure. AppHarbor needs no early adopter program. It's great for the same reason that Heroku and Rails were great for people: if you want to get an MVP up and running, it's almost instantaneous. I want to focus on my core product first and delay thinking about seriously scaling and the other major benefits of Azure over AppHarbor.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#15

Post by bdclimber14 »

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.

When I switched from .net MVC to Rails after a few years with Microsoft, my biggest pain was from missing VS. Rock solid variable renaming, autocompletion and method look up saved so much time.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#16

Post by vyrotek »

tansey wrote: post #14
vyrotek wrote: post #5

We've had our share of surprised faces when we told people our company is based on .Net as well. There were a lot of reasons for us to use the Microsoft stack. One of them was also existing expertise . My CoFounder and I previously worked as C# developers for years before working on IActionable.com full-time. And yes, Visual Studio is that awesome. "AppHarbor - It's Heroku for .NET. You simply can't beat it." I agree…

> was invited to Redmond to meet the dev teams as part of an early adopter program. I think that's the problem I see with Azure. AppHarbor needs no early adopter program. It's great for the same reason that Heroku and Rails were great for people: if you want to get an MVP up and running, it's almost instantaneous. I want to focus on my core product first and delay thinking about seriously scaling and the other major…

In their defense, Azure's target is not startups or 'hackers' with a toy app. In fact, it makes no sense at all pricing-wise if you only run a single webserver and database. Their pricing covers a large and growing set of features.

Microsoft's programs exist because of the insane amount of features and support that have to go into their products for their enterprise customers. And its those features that really make us stick with Azure for now. Specifically, I'm talking about TableStorage, Queues and AppFabric's Distributed Cache Service. I've already had a small chat with the AppHarbor guys before. I'd definitely love to move if it made sense.

Don't get me wrong though. I definitely have my gripes with Azure too.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#17

Post by jschrf »

tansey wrote: post #10
latch wrote: post #3

When did hacker become a synonym for programmer?

Fair enough. I changed the link to the "don't hire .NET programmers" article. I stand by the rest of the references, though. All the guys I mention in my last point are as much hackers as anyone I've ever met or worked with.

Wow, that article is full of all sorts of stupid. Someone should tell the author that .NET is not a language (not that it'll make a difference).

I find this part particularly hilarious:

"However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t. There’s no button for it. The patties are pre-formed in the wrong size. They start out frozen so they can’t be smushed up and reformed, and the thawing machine is so tightly integrated with the cooking machine that there’s no way to intercept it between the two."

Pure silliness. Perfect example of an irrational language bias.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#18

Post by tansey »

bdclimber14 wrote: post #12
tansey wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual coding-wise, ASP.NET MVC is closer to WebForms than Rails. How so? I've never worked with WebForms, but I have done a few Rails projects. I don't see any real differences except for ActiveRecord, which does have a .NET port: http://www.castleproject.org/activerecord/ Also, I wasn't trying to start a fight (really!). I just think that more .NET hackers should be motivated to do startups. IMHO, I think this is…

I have no problem with .net, but what od you mean about "all the pieces are in place"?

I mean the barrier to entry has been lowered drastically. I used to do my projects in Rails because I didn't want to go through the hell of renting and setting up a server for ASP.NET. Also, MVC 3 has really flattened the learning curve and the expert community is finally putting together seriously good OSS and tutorials. Finally, MVC 3 development is also highly decoupled from a lot of the uglier MS attempts at making a totally proprietary stack (MS AJAX -> jQuery, Codeplex -> Github, Azure -> AppHarbor).

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#19

Post by bdclimber14 »

tansey wrote: post #18
bdclimber14 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with .net, but what od you mean about "all the pieces are in place"?

I mean the barrier to entry has been lowered drastically. I used to do my projects in Rails because I didn't want to go through the hell of renting and setting up a server for ASP.NET. Also, MVC 3 has really flattened the learning curve and the expert community is finally putting together seriously good OSS and tutorials. Finally, MVC 3 development is also highly decoupled from a lot of the uglier MS attempts at maki…

It's certainly much better than a few years ago, and an order of magnitude improved over webforms. In some respects, I think the OSS ecosystem has much room to grow to catch up with Rails and Django. Although Rails and Django could also learn some tricks from Microsoft.

Re: Building a Startup - Defending .NET

#20

Post by bdclimber14 »

jschrf wrote: post #17
tansey wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. I changed the link to the "don't hire .NET programmers" article. I stand by the rest of the references, though. All the guys I mention in my last point are as much hackers as anyone I've ever met or worked with.

Wow, that article is full of all sorts of stupid. Someone should tell the author that .NET is not a language (not that it'll make a difference). I find this part particularly hilarious: "However, if you need to make a 1.7 oz burger, you simply can’t. There’s no button for it. The patties are pre-formed in the wrong size. They start out frozen so they can’t be smushed up and reformed, and the thawing machine is so tig…

In the author's defense, it's not like he outlandishly says ".net is a language" -- it's fairly common to refer to the framework when discussing stacks because of specificity. Saying "I program Rails apps" is clear, and Ruby is assumed. Technically, I don't "program in Rails" is if it was a language, but since the knowledge needed to effectively work with a framework is so involved, it's worth stating.
Post reply on HN