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

More functional C#

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: More functional C#

#91

Post by EnderMB »

JackMorgan wrote: post #65
EnderMB wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same goes for me! My first job was at a startup that used ASP.NET with C# (with PHP for micro-sites). From there, I've worked at agencies where I've built both large sites and small sites using ASP.NET and C#. The whole notion of .NET only being suitable for enterprise development is bullshit.

It's not that it is only ever used for enterprise, just that it seems to be mostly used for enterprise. Think of the licensing costs for visual studio, sqlserver and windows server. Sure there is the Bizspark, but it runs out, and I think most founders would be squeamish with the potential business-technical debt that would represent. At least right now, MS is still seen (although less lately) like the Big Bad, so gi…

Actually, in my experience, I'd say that while .NET is used in enterprise, it's mostly used by small businesses. My experience is mainly within .NET based CMS's, and I've worked for a few agencies and startups that build on .NET, sometimes amongst other things.

I've never really bought the argument that building for .NET is too expensive. Yes, it's a lot more expensive than free, but for a company it's peanuts when it guarantees the company a stable platform and a growing dev market. The only people that will be priced out are bootstrappers. I've built more small-business sites on Umbraco than I can count.

Re: More functional C#

#92

Post by JackMorgan »

rjbwork wrote: post #90
JackMorgan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shrug, your costs might be different, but 13k per developer per year is hardly a pittance compared to my salary. I'd much rather have 13k in my pocket or in awesome stuff like monitors, desk, keyboard, etc.

In what world are you paying 13k per developer for year to use Microsoft products? Top of the line MSDN sub is like ~3k, and we get good desks and monitors and keyboards and computers too. Most places don't even buy MSDN, I do fine with a <1k in software to develop on .NET.

I got that price right off their site, top line Ultimate (only slightly less feature rich then Intellij IDEA) clocks in roughly $12500 more than IDEA.

http://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/how-to-buy-vs

Then most drop another couple hundred to make it actually have some of the cool Intellij IDEA features by adding in Resharper. I'm not trying to hate, I use VS at work, just I can see why it's not a popular startup ecosystem.

Re: More functional C#

#93

Post by mwg66 »

JackMorgan wrote: post #92
rjbwork wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what world are you paying 13k per developer for year to use Microsoft products? Top of the line MSDN sub is like ~3k, and we get good desks and monitors and keyboards and computers too. Most places don't even buy MSDN, I do fine with a <1k in software to develop on .NET.

I got that price right off their site, top line Ultimate (only slightly less feature rich then Intellij IDEA) clocks in roughly $12500 more than IDEA. http://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/how-to-buy-vs Then most drop another couple hundred to make it actually have some of the cool Intellij IDEA features by adding in Resharper. I'm not trying to hate, I use VS at work, just I can see why it's not a popular start…

I don't know how that price is arrived at but it's totally not realistic. I would expect to spend ~1.5K on VS2013 Professional plus associated dev. tools (R#, dotTrace etc).

Re: More functional C#

#94

Post by JackMorgan »

mwg66 wrote: post #93
JackMorgan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got that price right off their site, top line Ultimate (only slightly less feature rich then Intellij IDEA) clocks in roughly $12500 more than IDEA. http://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/products/how-to-buy-vs Then most drop another couple hundred to make it actually have some of the cool Intellij IDEA features by adding in Resharper. I'm not trying to hate, I use VS at work, just I can see why it's not a popular start…

I don't know how that price is arrived at but it's totally not realistic. I would expect to spend ~1.5K on VS2013 Professional plus associated dev. tools (R#, dotTrace etc).

Just yesterday morning (oh the timing) I shook my fists in rage after discovering the long awaited Fakes system for mocking static functions is only available in the Ultimate edition. An actual language feature, restricted to the 13k edition. Shrug, I had that in php 5 years ago...

What I don't get is: if people aren't even buying the top line IDE to use all its features, and are just buying the crappy subset IDEs, why use .NET at all? Where's the value proposition over Java/Scala? It runs on fewer architectures, the language is only mildly better than Java and certainly not better than Scala, and the long promoted IDE has less features and is exorbitantly overpriced. I just don't get it. Is it just inertia at this point? The question in my mind isn't: "why are so few startups using it?" It's "why is anyone still picking that as their business's main stack?"

I know my team is currently locked in to agreements with other companies who require it (naturally). So when a new customer wants our stuff, they have to handle it. Is that the main reason? Everyone using it is in a circle of dependence?

Oh I forgot to mention, the functionality of Fakes used to be free, but in the new iteration it no longer is, so they can squeeze a few more 13k editions.

Re: More functional C#

#95

Post by jaredsohn »

altreal wrote: post #71
V-2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "near functional" is sufficient most of the time and if there is no compelling reason to split your codebase among two different languages, you shouldn't do it. Not to mention that there's probably 1000 C# developers for every F# developer Have a look at http://www.indeed.com/jobanalytics/jobtrends?q=c%23%2C+f%23&... And someone has to maintain your near functional or functional code

I used to use this argument and only now I realize how flawed it was. At some point there were 1000 COBOL programmers for every programmers. If you decide to go with COBOL career, you will be maintaining bad software for years.

The GP was speaking from the standpoint of the business rather than that of the developer.

Re: More functional C#

#96

Post by EpicEng »

TillE wrote: post #21
Dewie wrote: post #11

I have read a lot of lang. wars and complaints about programming languages... but C# is one of the only languages that I can't remember reading any complaints about. None. I must conclude, by the usual Stroustrup quote, that no one uses C#. (yes this is tongue in cheek)

It's a little bit too verbose, it doesn't have quite the flexibility or metaprogramming ability of a language like Python. But in general it's a very solid choice. You can even get around a lot of the inefficiency of GC by careful usage of structs.

Of course it's more verbose than a dynamically typed language. Silly comparison.

Re: More functional C#

#97

Post by EpicEng »

platz wrote: post #54

While sprinkling a few expressions like this around is nice, it's quite a chore to embrace a true dataflow or similiar functionally typed design through your whole application, because the types in c# are so verbose i.e. public Generate(TState initialState, Func condition, Func iterate, Func resultSelector, IScheduler scheduler)

Yet, when calling that method, type inference will do its job and I will just pass in a few lamdas. What's the problem?

Re: More functional C#

#98

Post by platz »

EpicEng wrote: post #97
platz wrote: post #54

While sprinkling a few expressions like this around is nice, it's quite a chore to embrace a true dataflow or similiar functionally typed design through your whole application, because the types in c# are so verbose i.e. public Generate(TState initialState, Func condition, Func iterate, Func resultSelector, IScheduler scheduler)

Yet, when calling that method, type inference will do its job and I will just pass in a few lamdas. What's the problem?

right, just using the method is not a problem. I'm saying it sucks if you have to write a whole bunch of methods like that because you are creating your own generators, etc...
Post reply on HN