4 ms·

Why anyone evaluates .Net as something uniquely different to other languages/frameworks/platforms is beyond me. It has a certain set of capabilities, some it do

Why anyone evaluates .Net as something uniquely different to other languages/frameworks/platforms is beyond me. It has a certain set of capabilities, some it does really well, others not so well. Pretty much like any other language/framework/platform. As with any application or system being built, the available options for building said application should be evaluated and compared for strengths/weaknesses. Whether those fit into an organization's plans is for the organization to decide.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Except with .Net you are subscribing to a whole set of things. Windows + IIS and everything else that comes with it. If you choose python you can deploy to Linx/BSD/Solaris or even Windows. Also you get a nice choice of HTTP servers to run it on.
- jroseattle 15y ago
  Thanks for proving my point. It's all about consideration. Unless you're suggesting a platform that rules them all?
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    No, that's really the opposite of what I'm suggesting. My point is more that there is more you have to consider with the MS/.Net stack because it all comes as one big package. Want to port your RoR + pgSQL app from Linux over to a Windows server with IIS? Sure you can. Want to port your .Net + SQL Server app over from Windows to Linux + Apache? Ouch. (well maybe you can use Mono)
    - jroseattle 15y ago
      > My point is more that there is more you have to consider with the MS/.Net stack because it all comes as one big package. Yes, you have to make that consideration. Which was the point of my original comment -- you have to evaluate the whole in creating any application. > Want to port your RoR + pgSQL app from Linux over to a Windows server with IIS? Sure you can. > Want to port your .Net + SQL Server app over from Windows to Linux + Apache? Ouch. (well maybe you can use Mono) This type of commentary is actually a signal I use in candidate interviews. Such generalizations and their inference tells me what working experience a candidate holds. The level of ease to which you're inferring has to do with the code that's written, not the platform. I've fixed plenty of f'd up applications in my day, and it wasn't the technology stack's problem. In short, I find the arrows haven't so much to do with this as the archers.
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        I didn't mean to imply that the technology stack dictates whether or not an application will be f'ud up. There are plenty of examples of that with all technologies I am sure. More the point is that if I'm building a brand new "green field" project and I am deciding on technology to use the proprietary and general "locked togetherness" of the MS stack doesn't mean that I definitely won't choose it or that my app will suck because of it but it does mean that the bar it has to reach in terms of technology or productivity is higher than that of a more interchangeable open source/unix solution. So that is really my response to "Why anyone evaluates .Net as something uniquely different to other languages/frameworks/platforms is beyond me." Because .Net is the only stack that forces the entire stack on you. OK I'm sure there are others but most of those would not even be on a startups radar in terms of tech solutions. The platform will always be an issue if I can't just rip it out and replace it when either the vendor loses interest in it or it doesn't provide feature X that I want/need. Even the most well designed application can't be ported to a platform that simply lacks a complete runtime for it. The best you can hope for is to build the new parts of the code in something else and keep a legacy system running for the proprietary stuff integrate it together and slowly migrate over time.
- jinushaun 15y ago
  Exactly. You can't take on the .NET stack piecemeal. It's all or nothing and extremely difficult to color outside the lines.
- jinushaun 15y ago
  Exactly. You can't take on the .NET stack piecemeal. It's all or nothing and extremely difficult to color outside the lines.
- jinushaun 15y ago
  Exactly. You can't take on the .NET stack piecemeal. It's all or nothing and extremely difficult to color outside the lines.

jiggy2011 15y ago

Except with .Net you are subscribing to a whole set of things. Windows + IIS and everything else that comes with it. If you choose python you can deploy to Linx/BSD/Solaris or even Windows. Also you get a nice choice of HTTP servers to run it on.

jroseattle 15y ago
Thanks for proving my point. It's all about consideration. Unless you're suggesting a platform that rules them all?
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  No, that's really the opposite of what I'm suggesting. My point is more that there is more you have to consider with the MS/.Net stack because it all comes as one big package. Want to port your RoR + pgSQL app from Linux over to a Windows server with IIS? Sure you can. Want to port your .Net + SQL Server app over from Windows to Linux + Apache? Ouch. (well maybe you can use Mono)
  - jroseattle 15y ago
    > My point is more that there is more you have to consider with the MS/.Net stack because it all comes as one big package. Yes, you have to make that consideration. Which was the point of my original comment -- you have to evaluate the whole in creating any application. > Want to port your RoR + pgSQL app from Linux over to a Windows server with IIS? Sure you can. > Want to port your .Net + SQL Server app over from Windows to Linux + Apache? Ouch. (well maybe you can use Mono) This type of commentary is actually a signal I use in candidate interviews. Such generalizations and their inference tells me what working experience a candidate holds. The level of ease to which you're inferring has to do with the code that's written, not the platform. I've fixed plenty of f'd up applications in my day, and it wasn't the technology stack's problem. In short, I find the arrows haven't so much to do with this as the archers.
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      I didn't mean to imply that the technology stack dictates whether or not an application will be f'ud up. There are plenty of examples of that with all technologies I am sure. More the point is that if I'm building a brand new "green field" project and I am deciding on technology to use the proprietary and general "locked togetherness" of the MS stack doesn't mean that I definitely won't choose it or that my app will suck because of it but it does mean that the bar it has to reach in terms of technology or productivity is higher than that of a more interchangeable open source/unix solution. So that is really my response to "Why anyone evaluates .Net as something uniquely different to other languages/frameworks/platforms is beyond me." Because .Net is the only stack that forces the entire stack on you. OK I'm sure there are others but most of those would not even be on a startups radar in terms of tech solutions. The platform will always be an issue if I can't just rip it out and replace it when either the vendor loses interest in it or it doesn't provide feature X that I want/need. Even the most well designed application can't be ported to a platform that simply lacks a complete runtime for it. The best you can hope for is to build the new parts of the code in something else and keep a legacy system running for the proprietary stuff integrate it together and slowly migrate over time.
jinushaun 15y ago
Exactly. You can't take on the .NET stack piecemeal. It's all or nothing and extremely difficult to color outside the lines.
jinushaun 15y ago
Exactly. You can't take on the .NET stack piecemeal. It's all or nothing and extremely difficult to color outside the lines.
jinushaun 15y ago
Exactly. You can't take on the .NET stack piecemeal. It's all or nothing and extremely difficult to color outside the lines.