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

Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

piehead.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 193 posts

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#71

Post by bcrescimanno »

wslh wrote: post #55
bcrescimanno wrote: post #6

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…

Currently the same applies to every known service. You have developed using AWS or App Engine and try to migrate to other systems without changing a line of code?

There's some level of tie-in there; but it's not nearly as intense as a full-stack lock-in like .NET.

"We're tied to AWS and we need to edit some code to deploy on Rackspace Cloud or into our new DC"

vs.

"We're tied to MS so our options of where we're going to go are severely limited by the fact that we can ONLY move to providers who work with MS."

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#72

Post by kenjackson »

StavrosK wrote: post #49
kenjackson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, You do realize that C# in VS is just a compiler? It's csc.exe. There's no reason you can't host it in Eclipse. In fact there are several 3rd party components that allow you to host a C# editor anywhere you like. The problem, in this case at least, is that the C# experience is so solid that the motivation to create an Eclipse one is pretty low. Maybe the Mono folks have som…

I do realise this, I just added eclipse as an afterthought, as it's arguably as irrelevant as jQuery. The main focus was on the webserver/database, I just didn't expect someone to single the IDE out.

Webserver might be true. But database is not. SQL Server probably has 75% share from what I've seen. But 25% is a pretty large market, and you see everything under the sun there. You'll see Oracle, DB2, MySql, Teradata, and other stuff that I'd never heard of.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#73

Post by eibrahim »

It's just a perception. Use whatever tool/framework/service that work for your situation.

My latest project was a Windows Phone 7 app with a backend written in Python, hosted on Google AppEngine and using Google's Bigtable database.

A few years ago, for my startup, I used asp.net mvc for the web app and joomla (php) for the website because they had great themes.

So, open your mind and try different things, you will be surprised how much you will learn. But honestly, there is NOTHING that can't be done in either platforms. Technology is really irrelevant. Look at wordpress and facebook. Look at basecamp, look at office live and google office... Look at the crappy objective-c ecosystem and the awesome apps that were built with it.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#74

Post by kenjackson »

tjogin wrote: post #68
kenjackson wrote: post #27

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?

FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh?

Sigh. No. But .NET shops seem more willing to pay for a solution if it is the best one for their task. But if a free solution is the best, then everyone is happy.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#75

Post by mkr-hn »

MartinCron wrote: post #70
kenjackson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, You do realize that C# in VS is just a compiler? It's csc.exe. There's no reason you can't host it in Eclipse. In fact there are several 3rd party components that allow you to host a C# editor anywhere you like. The problem, in this case at least, is that the C# experience is so solid that the motivation to create an Eclipse one is pretty low. Maybe the Mono folks have som…

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.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#77

Post by vyrotek »

evo_9 wrote: post #38

This is interesting. More startup ar using .Net than I would have thought (including mine). We should create a separate thread to list/show our stuff (for those ready to show).

I wish there was a better way for us to meet other .Net startups. I usually try to send an email to any companies I discover are .Net based here on HN.

Even if you're not ready to show, I still want to meet everyone!

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#78

Post by snorkel »

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 established technology (eg. Silverlight vs. Flash, .NET vs. Java, Windows Passport vs. OAuth, and so on). Boring.

Perhaps the only area Microsoft has truly offered anything new and interesting is DirectX but I'm not a game developer so I don't have any use for it.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#79

Post by guard-of-terra »

gte910h wrote: post #56
guard-of-terra wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is Microsoft. .Net would be a perfect thing if it wasn't fully owned my MS, in which case it probably won't be far as perfect. However, you have to use MS OS, MS development tools, MS deployment - and it's pretty painful especially because you can't use shiny macbooks any longer :) If you try to replace any element of that chain, you're on your own entirely. On other hand, MS ecosystem is smaller than non…

> you can't use shiny macbooks any longer : Windows 7 supposedly installs and runs on MBPs just fine with bootcamp. You can even use a USB stick to install.

Macbook isn't just the hardware, it's a school of thought ^^

Seriously, I don't want Windows 7. Years of being Linux user taught me one thing: I really hate being the second class citisen.

And the reliable way of not being X class citisen is not letting any microsoft[-only] technologies in the door.

I perfectly like it when we have people with 3 different OSes in the room, even if I can't use the shiniest and fittiest language. I'd settle.

Re: Why Startups Could Use .NET, But Don’t

#80

Post by mixmastamyk »

.Net doesn't make sense for most web startups no matter how good it is. Why?

* The floss stack is good enough (sometimes better) and more flexible. Can scale up as well as out: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/06/scaling-up-vs-scali...

* Unix is more elegant as a headless networked server, as it was designed that way since the early 70's.

* Researching bizspark will never beat the efficiency of: sudo apt-get install postgres

* AKA, time spent worrying about licensing, product codes, and activation is time wasted.

* EC2 (for example) charges ~25% more for Windows thanks to license fees.

The choice between (free, freedom, and elegant), almost always beats (cheap, restricted, and (at times) clumsy)). If there is an aspect to your startup that makes .net a better fit, by all means. But to act as if it is a good solution for the average startup (that intends to grow rapidly) does the community a disservice.

I'd go so far as to say that the "Web 2.0" boom owes its existence to the combination of the floss stack and cheap commodity hardware. In the 90's it took millions to do what today takes thousands (or even hundreds).

Post reply on HN