5 ms·

That makes a lot of sense, as Windows boxes are not really good for web development, but I really hope they still test everything on Windows, extensively. Even

by zavulon 16y ago

That makes a lot of sense, as Windows boxes are not really good for web development, but I really hope they still test everything on Windows, extensively. Even though their software is web-based, there's still difference in behavior on different platforms.

macemoneta 16y ago
Windows in a VM makes web application testing easy. Always starting from a snapshot insures integrity of the environment too.
- eli 16y ago
  Agreed. I also combine that with a Linux server VM. This way you can mess around with server configuration without nuking your development environment. Plus you're developing on a server that is very similar to the production server.
ErrantX 16y ago
> Windows boxes are not really good for web development Unfair! I use Linux and Windows for web dev and they are both equally as good as the other. EDIT; oh come on, at least justify it... :)
- weavejester 16y ago
  Honestly, it depends what you're developing in. If you're developing in .NET, Windows isn't a bad platform. Anything else, and Windows starts to feel like a second-class citizen. For instance, a lot of tools written in Ruby tend to assume a Unix-like environment, even though the language itself is cross-platform. The other problem with Windows is that it doesn't make a very good server, and it's often useful to develop on the same OS you'll be eventually deploying to.
  - jimfl 16y ago
    Windows is surely a better server than OS X. Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable. Google is making a business decision here: it is too expensive for them to support Windows at the level of security they desire, which is likely a higher standard than most software development shops, and perhaps many banks.
    - weavejester 16y ago
      "Windows is surely a better server than OS X." I've been unable to find anything equivalent to Puppet or Chef on Windows. Might I enquire what tools you use for managing Windows servers? That said, I doubt I'd ever actually use an OSX server. There's little difference in functionality between an OSX server and a Linux server, and Linux servers have no licensing costs to worry about. Currently we're developing on OSX and Linux desktops, and deploying to Linux servers. "Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable." For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby, I'm afraid. Also, we haven't found any good way of deploying to Windows. I'd be curious how you manage deploying applications to a Windows server.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby This is ignoring PHP (one of the biggest web dev languages) and Python which do just as well on both. Also I have never seen the need to develop on the same platform as your server (if your using a local server, well, then that makes sense - but it's not the best workflow and, in addition, that is not a limitation of the development but of the server requirements :)) I won't disagree Ruby is better on Linux though.
        Zak 16y ago
        If you're the sole developer, it makes a lot of sense to run a local server for development purposes. It's cheaper, more convenient and really helpful if you're stuck somewhere with a poor Internet connection.
      - iamelgringo 16y ago
  - FlorinAndrei 16y ago
    Right. If you develop for Windows, then Windows is a pretty good platform.
- wanderr 16y ago
  Me too. I greatly prefer the tools that are available to me in Windows, but apparently I'm a freak for wanting a decent GUI IDE; most of my colleagues just use vim.
  - weavejester 16y ago
    Out of interest, which IDE do you use that is Windows-only? Visual Studio?
- fr0man 16y ago
  Yeah, other than Rails, I pretty much agree. I actually prefer Vim on windows to Vim on *nix, (I guess I'm mostly speaking of gVim),Visual Studio is terrific if you don't mind working in .NET, Eclipse and Netbeans are equally mature on Windows, and if you spend a lot of time in the command line, Powershell is really a better Bash in a lot of ways (still needs persistent command history though).

by zavulon 16y ago

macemoneta 16y ago

Windows in a VM makes web application testing easy. Always starting from a snapshot insures integrity of the environment too.

eli 16y ago
Agreed. I also combine that with a Linux server VM. This way you can mess around with server configuration without nuking your development environment. Plus you're developing on a server that is very similar to the production server.

ErrantX 16y ago

> Windows boxes are not really good for web development Unfair! I use Linux and Windows for web dev and they are both equally as good as the other. EDIT; oh come on, at least justify it... :)

weavejester 16y ago
Honestly, it depends what you're developing in. If you're developing in .NET, Windows isn't a bad platform. Anything else, and Windows starts to feel like a second-class citizen. For instance, a lot of tools written in Ruby tend to assume a Unix-like environment, even though the language itself is cross-platform. The other problem with Windows is that it doesn't make a very good server, and it's often useful to develop on the same OS you'll be eventually deploying to.
- jimfl 16y ago
  Windows is surely a better server than OS X. Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable. Google is making a business decision here: it is too expensive for them to support Windows at the level of security they desire, which is likely a higher standard than most software development shops, and perhaps many banks.
  - weavejester 16y ago
    "Windows is surely a better server than OS X." I've been unable to find anything equivalent to Puppet or Chef on Windows. Might I enquire what tools you use for managing Windows servers? That said, I doubt I'd ever actually use an OSX server. There's little difference in functionality between an OSX server and a Linux server, and Linux servers have no licensing costs to worry about. Currently we're developing on OSX and Linux desktops, and deploying to Linux servers. "Also, the tool set for web development on Windows is very mature and stable." For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby, I'm afraid. Also, we haven't found any good way of deploying to Windows. I'd be curious how you manage deploying applications to a Windows server.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      For .NET, maybe. Not for something like Ruby This is ignoring PHP (one of the biggest web dev languages) and Python which do just as well on both. Also I have never seen the need to develop on the same platform as your server (if your using a local server, well, then that makes sense - but it's not the best workflow and, in addition, that is not a limitation of the development but of the server requirements :)) I won't disagree Ruby is better on Linux though.
      - Zak 16y ago
        If you're the sole developer, it makes a lot of sense to run a local server for development purposes. It's cheaper, more convenient and really helpful if you're stuck somewhere with a poor Internet connection.
    - iamelgringo 16y ago
- FlorinAndrei 16y ago
  Right. If you develop for Windows, then Windows is a pretty good platform.
wanderr 16y ago
Me too. I greatly prefer the tools that are available to me in Windows, but apparently I'm a freak for wanting a decent GUI IDE; most of my colleagues just use vim.
- weavejester 16y ago
  Out of interest, which IDE do you use that is Windows-only? Visual Studio?
fr0man 16y ago
Yeah, other than Rails, I pretty much agree. I actually prefer Vim on windows to Vim on *nix, (I guess I'm mostly speaking of gVim),Visual Studio is terrific if you don't mind working in .NET, Eclipse and Netbeans are equally mature on Windows, and if you spend a lot of time in the command line, Powershell is really a better Bash in a lot of ways (still needs persistent command history though).