5 ms·

It's not accurate, for what it's worth. I'm working on a startup with .NET, and while I do use some parts of the MS Ecosystem (Visual Studio, C#, ASP.NET MVC,

It's not accurate, for what it's worth. I'm working on a startup with .NET, and while I do use some parts of the MS Ecosystem (Visual Studio, C#, ASP.NET MVC, SQL Server, IIS) I use plenty of tools that aren't from Microsoft (NUnit, JQuery, Github, ReSharper, TeamCity, DotTrace, DotCover, Selenium). Any good technologist mixes and matches the things that work best for their solution, right?

kenjackson 15y ago
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 adequate solution for free.
- bcrescimanno 15y ago
  A solution that costs money is not necessarily the "best" solution simply because it cost money. cough perforce cough
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    A solution that costs money is not necessarily the "best" solution simply because it cost money. I didn't say it was. I said they're WILLING to pay for the best solution. Not that they go and look for paid products only.
    - smhinsey 15y ago
      An example of this is the fact that something like ReSharper both exists and is awesome.
- tjogin 15y ago
  FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh? How do you reconcile that with the fact that .NET MVC is a blushingly obvious imitation of Ruby on Rails?
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh? Sigh. No. But .NET shops seem more willing to pay for a solution if it is the best one for their task. But if a free solution is the best, then everyone is happy.
  - woogychuck 15y ago
    They're both implementations of the MVC pattern, but short of that there seem to be very few similarities between them. Admittedly, I've only built one project in RoR, but the framework itself required much less configuration and Ruby is a huge departure from the Java/C# coding style. The MVC design pattern has been in use since 1979; it's nothing new. It's also worth noting that Java devs and Microsoft devs were building MVP (a modified version of MVC) based apps in the 90's. I'm not trying to dis RoR, because it seems like a pretty solid framework and nobody can deny that the 37signals guys were the motivating force behind the current wave of MVC development. However, what they created was a better web implementation of an existing pattern and I honestly think Django and CakePHP are much more obvious imitations. Finally, it's worth noting that the ASP.NET MVC framework is open source and has similar license to RoR.
    - tjogin 15y ago
      ASP.NET MVC is a far closer imitation of Ruby on Rails than either CakePHP or even Groovy on Grails. Django isn't even an imitation, by any stretch of the imagination. The similarities between ASP.NET MVC and Rails aren't just that they both use MVC, that's shallow. ASP.NET MVC is blushingly similar, nothing else comes even close, not even those who claim to try to imitate Rails. I'm not saying ASP.NET MVC is bad, in fact it seems pretty good. But anyone using and liking it really ought to have a look at the original, from where Microsoft lifted it wholesale. Those guys must be doing something right.
- bad_user 15y ago
  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 negative impact on Linux. Last time I tried it, it also leaked memory, heavily. Nobody sane uses it, unless they made a bad decision to build on ASP.NET at the beginning and it is cheaper to just try using Mono. tons of third-party tools are used But only tools that are replaceable, used mostly in development mode. How many .NET shops are using MySQL or PostgreSQL? How many of them are using NGinx or Varnish? How many are using CouchDB or MongoDB? .NET shops ... seem a lot more willing to pay for the best solution This is wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to comment on it. First of all, .NET shops are digging themselves in a hole by using .NET in the first place. Of course the best solution is SQL Server, because stuff like LINQ doesn't work reliably for PostgreSQL and because the performance of the PostgreSQL client is awful and because the reliable way of designing a database is through Visual Studio, which again, doesn't work so well for PostgreSQL. You would be mad to choose PostgreSQL if working with .NET That's the whole point - Microsoft doesn't care to have interoperability with third-parties. Microsoft wants you to buy Window Server licenses that are limited in the number of CPUs you can use and it wants you to use nothing less than SQL Server, even though for the same money you can buy multiple kick-ass servers and use PostgreSQL for free. This isn't about cheapness, it's about the value provided (i.e. being frugal). Running a business should be done frugally, since you're only in business as long as the money supply doesn't run out. Paying more money than you should is irresponsible.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    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.
StavrosK 15y ago
That's not really saying much. You just mentioned a Microsoft stack with a few client-side or third-party libraries. How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, nginx and postgres? The pieces you mentioned are either all on the Microsoft stack or irrelevant to it. jQuery and github, for example, have nothing to do with your backend's stack.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, You do realize that C# in VS is just a compiler? It's csc.exe. There's no reason you can't host it in Eclipse. In fact there are several 3rd party components that allow you to host a C# editor anywhere you like. The problem, in this case at least, is that the C# experience is so solid that the motivation to create an Eclipse one is pretty low. Maybe the Mono folks have something for it. But the amount of work that MS has done for the C# experience is truly impressive. I can, and have, written C# programs in vim, but it's not something I'd like to do on a regular basis.
  - StavrosK 15y ago
    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.
    - JonoW 15y ago
      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
      - StavrosK 15y ago
        Ah, that's promising, thank you.
    - kenjackson 15y ago

kenjackson 15y ago

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 adequate solution for free.

bcrescimanno 15y ago
A solution that costs money is not necessarily the "best" solution simply because it cost money. cough perforce cough
- kenjackson 15y ago
  A solution that costs money is not necessarily the "best" solution simply because it cost money. I didn't say it was. I said they're WILLING to pay for the best solution. Not that they go and look for paid products only.
  - smhinsey 15y ago
    An example of this is the fact that something like ReSharper both exists and is awesome.
tjogin 15y ago
FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh? How do you reconcile that with the fact that .NET MVC is a blushingly obvious imitation of Ruby on Rails?
- kenjackson 15y ago
  FOSS is adequate and .NET is the best solution, huh? Sigh. No. But .NET shops seem more willing to pay for a solution if it is the best one for their task. But if a free solution is the best, then everyone is happy.
- woogychuck 15y ago
  They're both implementations of the MVC pattern, but short of that there seem to be very few similarities between them. Admittedly, I've only built one project in RoR, but the framework itself required much less configuration and Ruby is a huge departure from the Java/C# coding style. The MVC design pattern has been in use since 1979; it's nothing new. It's also worth noting that Java devs and Microsoft devs were building MVP (a modified version of MVC) based apps in the 90's. I'm not trying to dis RoR, because it seems like a pretty solid framework and nobody can deny that the 37signals guys were the motivating force behind the current wave of MVC development. However, what they created was a better web implementation of an existing pattern and I honestly think Django and CakePHP are much more obvious imitations. Finally, it's worth noting that the ASP.NET MVC framework is open source and has similar license to RoR.
  - tjogin 15y ago
    ASP.NET MVC is a far closer imitation of Ruby on Rails than either CakePHP or even Groovy on Grails. Django isn't even an imitation, by any stretch of the imagination. The similarities between ASP.NET MVC and Rails aren't just that they both use MVC, that's shallow. ASP.NET MVC is blushingly similar, nothing else comes even close, not even those who claim to try to imitate Rails. I'm not saying ASP.NET MVC is bad, in fact it seems pretty good. But anyone using and liking it really ought to have a look at the original, from where Microsoft lifted it wholesale. Those guys must be doing something right.
bad_user 15y ago
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 negative impact on Linux. Last time I tried it, it also leaked memory, heavily. Nobody sane uses it, unless they made a bad decision to build on ASP.NET at the beginning and it is cheaper to just try using Mono. tons of third-party tools are used But only tools that are replaceable, used mostly in development mode. How many .NET shops are using MySQL or PostgreSQL? How many of them are using NGinx or Varnish? How many are using CouchDB or MongoDB? .NET shops ... seem a lot more willing to pay for the best solution This is wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to comment on it. First of all, .NET shops are digging themselves in a hole by using .NET in the first place. Of course the best solution is SQL Server, because stuff like LINQ doesn't work reliably for PostgreSQL and because the performance of the PostgreSQL client is awful and because the reliable way of designing a database is through Visual Studio, which again, doesn't work so well for PostgreSQL. You would be mad to choose PostgreSQL if working with .NET That's the whole point - Microsoft doesn't care to have interoperability with third-parties. Microsoft wants you to buy Window Server licenses that are limited in the number of CPUs you can use and it wants you to use nothing less than SQL Server, even though for the same money you can buy multiple kick-ass servers and use PostgreSQL for free. This isn't about cheapness, it's about the value provided (i.e. being frugal). Running a business should be done frugally, since you're only in business as long as the money supply doesn't run out. Paying more money than you should is irresponsible.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  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.

StavrosK 15y ago

That's not really saying much. You just mentioned a Microsoft stack with a few client-side or third-party libraries. How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, nginx and postgres? The pieces you mentioned are either all on the Microsoft stack or irrelevant to it. jQuery and github, for example, have nothing to do with your backend's stack.

kenjackson 15y ago
How easy is it to, say, use Eclipse with C#, You do realize that C# in VS is just a compiler? It's csc.exe. There's no reason you can't host it in Eclipse. In fact there are several 3rd party components that allow you to host a C# editor anywhere you like. The problem, in this case at least, is that the C# experience is so solid that the motivation to create an Eclipse one is pretty low. Maybe the Mono folks have something for it. But the amount of work that MS has done for the C# experience is truly impressive. I can, and have, written C# programs in vim, but it's not something I'd like to do on a regular basis.
- StavrosK 15y ago
  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.
  - JonoW 15y ago
    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
    - StavrosK 15y ago
      Ah, that's promising, thank you.
  - kenjackson 15y ago