3 ms·

One thing that stood out to me was they wouldn't need necessarily need to optimize for performance if they didn't choose a stack whose costs increase massively

by harg 6y ago

One thing that stood out to me was they wouldn't need necessarily need to optimize for performance if they didn't choose a stack whose costs increase massively as you scale. In many applications things like having a testable, easy-to-read, well-structured codebase can trump performance, and it's often worth sacrificing a bit of performance if it means it's easier to refactor and build new features.

martinald 6y ago
I don't know why they went for SQL Server, .NET has had good support for other databases even back to 2009. I imagine that was a huge amount of their licensing cost. With .NET Core running so well on Linux now they would have no Windows Server licenses to worry about too. The first production version of .NET core was released in 2016. Even back in 2009 it was possible to run web apps on mono on linux too, I know a lot of shops around that era that used windows for more complex parts of the app but then used mono for 'simple' high volume parts to save $$$ on windows licensing.
- jve 6y ago
  Because that was what the main developer and founder Jeff Atwood was familiar with. And he really liked the stack. > Atwood: We are not personally going to be language agnostic, because we need to actually build the site. And in terms of people actually working on it, Joel's in an advisory role, I'm gonna be writing code, and then a friend of mine, Jarrod, I'll be working very closely with. So it's sort of like 1.5 developers, so I need to actually get things done. In order to do that, I'm gonna fall back on what I know, and what I know is essentially ASP.NET. So ASP.NET is gonna be the platform. And I actually really like ASP.NET. Episode 003 April 29, 2008, from the StackOverflow podcast. https://stackoverflow.fogbugz.com/default.asp?W56 https://stackoverflow.fogbugz.com/default.asp?W56 Analysis from 2008 about Scaling Up / Out. Electricity also is something you can't ignore. https://blog.codinghorror.com/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidden-costs/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidd... Ah, sorry, this is a discussion about SQL Server being expensive rather than .NET stack.

by harg 6y ago

martinald 6y ago

I don't know why they went for SQL Server, .NET has had good support for other databases even back to 2009. I imagine that was a huge amount of their licensing cost. With .NET Core running so well on Linux now they would have no Windows Server licenses to worry about too. The first production version of .NET core was released in 2016. Even back in 2009 it was possible to run web apps on mono on linux too, I know a lot of shops around that era that used windows for more complex parts of the app but then used mono for 'simple' high volume parts to save $$$ on windows licensing.

jve 6y ago
Because that was what the main developer and founder Jeff Atwood was familiar with. And he really liked the stack. > Atwood: We are not personally going to be language agnostic, because we need to actually build the site. And in terms of people actually working on it, Joel's in an advisory role, I'm gonna be writing code, and then a friend of mine, Jarrod, I'll be working very closely with. So it's sort of like 1.5 developers, so I need to actually get things done. In order to do that, I'm gonna fall back on what I know, and what I know is essentially ASP.NET. So ASP.NET is gonna be the platform. And I actually really like ASP.NET. Episode 003 April 29, 2008, from the StackOverflow podcast. https://stackoverflow.fogbugz.com/default.asp?W56 https://stackoverflow.fogbugz.com/default.asp?W56 Analysis from 2008 about Scaling Up / Out. Electricity also is something you can't ignore. https://blog.codinghorror.com/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidden-costs/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/scaling-up-vs-scaling-out-hidd... Ah, sorry, this is a discussion about SQL Server being expensive rather than .NET stack.