Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#131

Post by kranner »

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #115
drawkbox wrote: post #104

Going away from MS platforms by startups is due to cost and quality (of developers). Annoyances with the latest MS Platforms: - Nasty URLs (capped, trailing file types) - although it can be done with IIS7 routes or preferrably IIRF which runs IIS5-current. They still dont' have a mod_rewrite solution unless you run server 2008 with IIS7. Look at how nasty this looks: http://www.ferrari.com/Italian/Pages/Home.aspx , w…

This is a load of shit. 1. ASP.NET MVC2, which is what they're trying to replace Webforms with, doesn't have any URL mangling issues given that the pathing is determined entirely by the developer's architecture. 2. Yeah, a view needs to contain a .ASPX file - this is an issue because? 3. You can't figure out how to edit some basic configuration settings, therefore the technology failed? Having consumed more than my f…

Just my little vote:

I find the ".aspx" ending to be ugly too, in addition to being sneaky free advertising for their platform.

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#132

Post by stoic »

zalew wrote: post #16

myspace The server infrastructure consists of over 4,500 web servers (running Windows Server 2003, IIS 6.0, ASP.NET and .Net Framework 3.5), over 1,200 cache servers (running 64-bit Windows Server 2003), and over 500 database servers (running 64-bit Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005) as well as a custom distributed file system which runs on Gentoo Linux.

I think they started with ColdFusion

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#133

Post by [deleted] »

zalew wrote: post #16

myspace The server infrastructure consists of over 4,500 web servers (running Windows Server 2003, IIS 6.0, ASP.NET and .Net Framework 3.5), over 1,200 cache servers (running 64-bit Windows Server 2003), and over 500 database servers (running 64-bit Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005) as well as a custom distributed file system which runs on Gentoo Linux.

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#134

Post by jasonkester »

kranner wrote: post #131
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a load of shit. 1. ASP.NET MVC2, which is what they're trying to replace Webforms with, doesn't have any URL mangling issues given that the pathing is determined entirely by the developer's architecture. 2. Yeah, a view needs to contain a .ASPX file - this is an issue because? 3. You can't figure out how to edit some basic configuration settings, therefore the technology failed? Having consumed more than my f…

Just my little vote: I find the ".aspx" ending to be ugly too, in addition to being sneaky free advertising for their platform.

I guess the solution would be not to have your URLs end in .aspx. It's trivial to do that, you know. Just like it is in any other platform.

Up above, you're looking at a list of complaints that haven't been valid since 2005, and to be honest weren't an issue for anybody back then who knew what they were doing.

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#135

Post by kranner »

jasonkester wrote: post #134
kranner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just my little vote: I find the ".aspx" ending to be ugly too, in addition to being sneaky free advertising for their platform.

I guess the solution would be not to have your URLs end in .aspx. It's trivial to do that, you know. Just like it is in any other platform. Up above, you're looking at a list of complaints that haven't been valid since 2005, and to be honest weren't an issue for anybody back then who knew what they were doing.

OK, thanks, I didn't know.

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#136

Post by henrikschroder »

kranner wrote: post #131
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a load of shit. 1. ASP.NET MVC2, which is what they're trying to replace Webforms with, doesn't have any URL mangling issues given that the pathing is determined entirely by the developer's architecture. 2. Yeah, a view needs to contain a .ASPX file - this is an issue because? 3. You can't figure out how to edit some basic configuration settings, therefore the technology failed? Having consumed more than my f…

Just my little vote: I find the ".aspx" ending to be ugly too, in addition to being sneaky free advertising for their platform.

And .php isn't?

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#138

Post by arethuza »

drawkbox wrote: post #122
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a load of shit. 1. ASP.NET MVC2, which is what they're trying to replace Webforms with, doesn't have any URL mangling issues given that the pathing is determined entirely by the developer's architecture. 2. Yeah, a view needs to contain a .ASPX file - this is an issue because? 3. You can't figure out how to edit some basic configuration settings, therefore the technology failed? Having consumed more than my f…

OK I was going to delete my response just so I didn't have to do this but here we go. Let me first just say I did .NET since 2001 first beta and for 8+ years after that. I bailed mentally to other frameworks around 2005 while in SOAP hell. I do primarily Python frameworks, Ruby or PHP but still do some .NET mainly Mono. I really like C# but disagree with the direction of most Microsoft culture decisions. I was MCSD i…

To address those points:

1. That's trivial to change though and I think I would argue that the default mapping has more to do with how to map to class names (e.g. /Member to MemberController) than folders.

2. You don't have to use ASPX if you don't want to - there are a variety of difference view engines - I happen to prefer StringTemplate.

3. .Net MVC projects, don't need to be complicated, most of the complexity you see in these projects is down to the developers

4. 5. and 6. are true - but things like Datasets cen be easily avoided if you don't like them (which I don't)

7. .Net MVC has got some fantastic extension points, I never use any of the wizards or complex editing tools in VS that hide the underlying file contents. This is perfectly feasible if you want to do it.

8. That isn't really a comment on the technology stack - just because a lot of people use it doesn't mean it is bad.

9. Writing code to run in SharePoint is the devils work.

Re: Ask HN: (No) Microsoft based start-ups?

#139

Post by nrb »

drawkbox wrote: post #122
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a load of shit. 1. ASP.NET MVC2, which is what they're trying to replace Webforms with, doesn't have any URL mangling issues given that the pathing is determined entirely by the developer's architecture. 2. Yeah, a view needs to contain a .ASPX file - this is an issue because? 3. You can't figure out how to edit some basic configuration settings, therefore the technology failed? Having consumed more than my f…

OK I was going to delete my response just so I didn't have to do this but here we go. Let me first just say I did .NET since 2001 first beta and for 8+ years after that. I bailed mentally to other frameworks around 2005 while in SOAP hell. I do primarily Python frameworks, Ruby or PHP but still do some .NET mainly Mono. I really like C# but disagree with the direction of most Microsoft culture decisions. I was MCSD i…

It seems that the criticisms keep switching between ASP.NET and ASP.NET MVC interchangeably. If you are primarily speaking about MVC, I think there is definitely some misinformation here.

1. The key term here is "defaults". This behavior is completely configurable.

2. This doesn't apply to MVC, since it is all handler based. Plus, you can extend it at pretty much any point in the pipeline: http://blog.stevensanderson.com/2007/11/20/aspnet-mvc-pipeli...

4. I think this is an older point of view that is rapidly changing with MVC. Outputting custom formats is astonishingly simple, it's a matter of using built-in ActionResults, or inheriting it when creating your own, e.g., YamlResult. When they make the framework more extensible like they have here, I think developers certainly take advantage of that.

I keep seeing a lot of criticism of the default behavior, when all of this behavior is trivially overridden.

Post reply on HN