5 ms·

More Silicon Valley startups need to get on board with .NET. Yeah, I know it's strongly typed and doesn't abuse white space, but you're missing A LOT of potenti

More Silicon Valley startups need to get on board with .NET. Yeah, I know it's strongly typed and doesn't abuse white space, but you're missing A LOT of potential customers when you skip out on .NET. Seems like a really poor business decision to ignore it simply because there isn't someone on your team who has built a compiler for it in their spare time.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dbnoch 9y ago
I just wanted to chime in on this. IMO It will happen more often now, but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) which is the real reason why SV startups haven't been on board. It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company.
- bradford 9y ago
  > .NET had/has a higher cost to entry > It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company. What cost(s) are you thinking of here? .NET doesn't cost anything (monetarily). Some of the tools cost money but you can also get by in the .NET world with a command-prompt and text editor (I did as a hobbyist for quite some time). I might be misunderstanding your statements, but it's also possible that you're misunderstanding .NET, I'm just trying to clarify which one it :)
  - recentdarkness 9y ago
    One needs to invest $$ because you pay money for the developers time to create software
    - perfectstorm 9y ago
      > but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) as opposed to Java developers who are hmm...free ?
  - oblio 9y ago
    For a long time many third party components were commercial. A lot more than in the Ruby, Python or Java ecosystems, for example. Things are slowly moving towards Open Source and cross platform, but .NET is far behind Java at this moment. It is moving fast, though.
    - wutwutwutwut 9y ago
      I've been doing .NET development since 2006 and have never had to buy commercial components. Every time I have needed something there has been free/open source stuff. I'm guessing it depends on what type of software you are working on?
      - sbergot 9y ago
        For a long time there was no free option to validate json schema with the latest norm.
frik 9y ago
PG wrote some essays about it: startups better spend their seed/series money on other things than software licenses. Then the unthinkable happened: after PG left, HN got MSFT PR-heavy in spring 2015. People should learn from the history.
- lwansbrough 9y ago
  > startups better spend their seed/series money on other things than software licenses Like say, paying developers to maintain their SDK in Closure?
ploxiln 9y ago
Eh, this seems like an example where Stripe did pretty well for itself by leaving this part of the market for last.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dbnoch 9y ago

I just wanted to chime in on this. IMO It will happen more often now, but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) which is the real reason why SV startups haven't been on board. It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company.

bradford 9y ago
> .NET had/has a higher cost to entry > It is arguably also a bad business decision to shell out $$ for a language that isn't used at your company. What cost(s) are you thinking of here? .NET doesn't cost anything (monetarily). Some of the tools cost money but you can also get by in the .NET world with a command-prompt and text editor (I did as a hobbyist for quite some time). I might be misunderstanding your statements, but it's also possible that you're misunderstanding .NET, I'm just trying to clarify which one it :)
- recentdarkness 9y ago
  One needs to invest $$ because you pay money for the developers time to create software
  - perfectstorm 9y ago
    > but .NET had/has a higher cost to entry (higher than say, ruby/py/java) as opposed to Java developers who are hmm...free ?
- oblio 9y ago
  For a long time many third party components were commercial. A lot more than in the Ruby, Python or Java ecosystems, for example. Things are slowly moving towards Open Source and cross platform, but .NET is far behind Java at this moment. It is moving fast, though.
  - wutwutwutwut 9y ago
    I've been doing .NET development since 2006 and have never had to buy commercial components. Every time I have needed something there has been free/open source stuff. I'm guessing it depends on what type of software you are working on?
    - sbergot 9y ago
      For a long time there was no free option to validate json schema with the latest norm.

frik 9y ago

PG wrote some essays about it: startups better spend their seed/series money on other things than software licenses. Then the unthinkable happened: after PG left, HN got MSFT PR-heavy in spring 2015. People should learn from the history.

lwansbrough 9y ago
> startups better spend their seed/series money on other things than software licenses Like say, paying developers to maintain their SDK in Closure?

ploxiln 9y ago

Eh, this seems like an example where Stripe did pretty well for itself by leaving this part of the market for last.