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

91–100 of 193 posts

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

#91

Post by joeyespo »

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…

I think it really is just a perception. I use .NET for developing Windows desktop applications. Visual Studio and .NET's basic framework are the only things I consistently use. By choice. In my experience, there's many open-source options for everything else I've needed.

What's interesting is this perception is exactly why the medium-sized company I work for uses .NET. They pay big money for the MS support. So they are reluctant to use other non-MS product because of the cost and risk of introducing another place to go to for support. The other big issue for them is licensing.

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

#92

Post by technomancy »

> As a result, programmers start to choose technologies based on that cultural perception, rather than focusing on the best approach for the kinds software they want to build.

This seems to imply that cultural issues don't affect the way the software is built. In my mind it's the #1 factor.

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

#93

Post by 6ren »

PHP and ruby are simpler and easier to use for non-enterprise webapps (particularly with RoR, and Sinatra being simpler again).

Like JSON being favoured for simpler uses where XML is not required (it lacks schema, references and namespaces).

The usual trajectory is for technology to improve. PHP and ruby and JSON are becoming better at meeting the needs of their specific users. It's harder for a highly sophisticated technology, like .NET, to become simpler (though they've been much better at this than Java).

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

#94

Post by jules »

Ruudjah wrote: post #23

-Not OSS (note I didn't include the F) -Cross-browser pains -Vendor lockin (getting better with mono, but not officially supported by MS) -Non-(f)OSS tools or less (F)OSS tools -Non-OSS risk (can't patch if needed) -No support for WebGL/other html5 tech -Useless pushing of Silverlight while industry shifts to HTML5

Point 1, 3, 4 and 5 boil down to "not OSS".

Point 2 is not true, what does the back-end stack have to do with cross browser compatibility?

Point 6 isn't true either, for the same reason. You can perfectly well use WebGL and other HTML5 tech in a .NET web app.

Point 7 doesn't really matter. Microsoft themselves has said they are going for HTML5 not Silverlight.

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

#95

Post by Info_Addict »

djjose wrote: post #25
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…

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…

The first time I had to re-buy something because I had invested time in a project and could not do without a certain vendors product I looked for (and then used) a freely installable tool that offered the same functionality. I suspect all people of common sense do this. People do "vendor lock-in" as a last resort, and the reason people don't use the MS stack is because they never figured a out a way to stop piracy without stopping (or negatively effecting) honest production. That and not allowing their products to be used as independent pieces. IMHO.

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

#96

Post by kylec »

I think the Achilles Heel for .NET is Windows - the only way using .NET to develop makes any sense is to use Visual Studio, and to use Visual Studio, you need to use Windows. And that's a hard sell for a lot of people - most people in the startup scene use Mac OS X or Linux, and one of the reasons why is contempt of Windows. In many ways, .NET is better than Java, but I can't seriously consider using it if it's tied to Windows.

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

#97

Post by kenjackson »

bad_user wrote: post #81
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…

although none are requirements, as Mono demonstrates Not to bash on Mono, as Miguel and the Mono team did a fantastic job, but Mono has been more focused on client apps (like for embedding in games). Another reason for why hosting ASP.NET projects on Linux is awful is because ASP.NET was built for Windows. Things like async operations are built for the Windows kernel, having architecture decisions that have a negativ…

But only tools that are replaceable, used mostly in development mode.

I'm not sure what "tools that are replaceable" means (because to me everything is replaceable), but the comment about mostly in dev mode is just not correct.

There are tons of uses of Oracle. In that 25%, it's probably 75%. Tons of MS shops use Flash. Tons of MS shops use EC2. Tons of MS shops use SQLLite. Tons of shops use nHibernate. Tons of MS shops use components from Telerik, Infragistics, Actipro, Component Source, ESRI.

Those are all things deployed with the application and not made by MS. Again, the characterization you made is just false.

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

#98

Post by StavrosK »

JonoW wrote: post #52
StavrosK wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Database isn't relevant, there are .Net drivers for pretty much every popular database. Loads of .Net devs use MySql and Postgres, and using document databases like MongoDB is also an option now

Ah, that's promising, thank you.

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

#99

Post by vyrotek »

eibrahim wrote: post #73

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 b…

I totally remember checking out the Yonkly source code when I was first learning asp.net mvc. :) Has it really been years already?

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

#100

Post by vyrotek »

jswinghammer wrote: post #19

My startup uses .Net which I chose for the basic reason that I know it very well and I didn't have time to go learn something else while I was trying to get work done. Any server I add is in response to more paying customers so the cost doesn't matter at all. It cuts into the margin a little but I only add new servers when we add a lot of new business. The initial cost of VS.Net was annoying but it wasn't bad and I w…

Are you still working on Aterium.com? Or do you have a new startup that you're working on now?
Post reply on HN