3 ms·

> What technology tied to .net do you see as inferior? Most technologies these days aren't tied to a programming language. Didn't say anything was tied to .NET

> What technology tied to .net do you see as inferior? Most technologies these days aren't tied to a programming language. Didn't say anything was tied to .NET. I said Microsoft educated a whole industry of .NET developers to never look outside the MS stack. That's two different things. Which MS technologies I consider inferior to non MS alternatives, but .NET developers insist on using despite them being inferior? Let's start with the elephant in the room: Azure... Azure Web Apps. They are slower than ElasticBeanstalk or AppEngine and only run on IIS, so .NET Core devs can't even run their .NET Core apps to their full potential by running it on Kestrel or Kestrel behind something like nginx. This itself is embarrassing and the fact that still so many people don't look beyong Azure Web Apps just because it's Microsoft is just mind blogging.

sremani 7y ago
Sticking to default stack, where there is collective competence even if it dings a bit of performance is not such a horrible business/organizational idea.
- dustinmoris 7y ago
  It's interesting that you call Azure the default stack. That sort of proves my point. AWS is the default cloud stack. It's more mature, more companies run on AWS than on any other cloud platform, it has full .NET and .NET Core support, it even supported things like .NET Core or F# much earlier than Azure did. There is more resources online, more courses, more talent and more books on AWS than on any other cloud platform. So how is Azure the default stack? You call it default, because Microsoft has spend so much marketing - aka educating you - to believe that Azure IS THE DEFAULT thing to use. It's sad honestly, because it makes .NET development a lot less fun and I really like .NET otherwise. EDIT: Comment below me: > I think rather because it is integrated into Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio out of the box. This is another example that precisely proves my point, that .NET devs have been educated to stop looking beyond what Microsoft puts on their plate. AWS also has fantastic Visual Studio support. It's only one plugin away. It's like installing a NuGet package, hardly any effort. But the default .NET developer rather uses an inferior cloud stack, because the effort to install an AWS plugin into Visual Studio is seen as more effort than having to deal with all the inabilities of Azure in the long run. That doesn't make sense. It's irrational and only because Microsoft has done such a great marketing it doesn't even occur to the majority of .NET devs.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    I think rather because it is integrated into Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio out of the box.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    You can deploy code anywhere, and all 3 major clouds have good tooling for it. Azure is obviously more integrated since it's also from MS but that's completely unsurprising and has no impact on your choices.
figers 7y ago
Azure web apps can run kestrel instead of IIS when you select linux as the OS at creation. I just went in to re-confirm. We love azure at our company. For one project One dev running Windows, a few running MacOS, one running Linux all coding our .net Core web application. Simple check-in to github kicks off a QA branch build of our app hosted on Azure web apps.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  The Linux hosts for Azure Web Apps also support Python and Node.JS out of the box.

sremani 7y ago

Sticking to default stack, where there is collective competence even if it dings a bit of performance is not such a horrible business/organizational idea.

dustinmoris 7y ago
It's interesting that you call Azure the default stack. That sort of proves my point. AWS is the default cloud stack. It's more mature, more companies run on AWS than on any other cloud platform, it has full .NET and .NET Core support, it even supported things like .NET Core or F# much earlier than Azure did. There is more resources online, more courses, more talent and more books on AWS than on any other cloud platform. So how is Azure the default stack? You call it default, because Microsoft has spend so much marketing - aka educating you - to believe that Azure IS THE DEFAULT thing to use. It's sad honestly, because it makes .NET development a lot less fun and I really like .NET otherwise. EDIT: Comment below me: > I think rather because it is integrated into Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio out of the box. This is another example that precisely proves my point, that .NET devs have been educated to stop looking beyond what Microsoft puts on their plate. AWS also has fantastic Visual Studio support. It's only one plugin away. It's like installing a NuGet package, hardly any effort. But the default .NET developer rather uses an inferior cloud stack, because the effort to install an AWS plugin into Visual Studio is seen as more effort than having to deal with all the inabilities of Azure in the long run. That doesn't make sense. It's irrational and only because Microsoft has done such a great marketing it doesn't even occur to the majority of .NET devs.
- cm2187 7y ago
  I think rather because it is integrated into Visual Studio and SQL Management Studio out of the box.
- manigandham 7y ago
  You can deploy code anywhere, and all 3 major clouds have good tooling for it. Azure is obviously more integrated since it's also from MS but that's completely unsurprising and has no impact on your choices.

figers 7y ago

Azure web apps can run kestrel instead of IIS when you select linux as the OS at creation. I just went in to re-confirm. We love azure at our company. For one project One dev running Windows, a few running MacOS, one running Linux all coding our .net Core web application. Simple check-in to github kicks off a QA branch build of our app hosted on Azure web apps.

WorldMaker 7y ago
The Linux hosts for Azure Web Apps also support Python and Node.JS out of the box.